

Should Voters Have to Pass a Test Before Pulling the Lever? - gmays
http://bigthink.com/praxis/should-voters-have-to-pass-a-competency-test-before-pulling-the-lever

======
palunon
>A quick look at this analogy exposes its central flaw. Bad driving is
objectively identifiable: if you drive over the speed limit, change lanes
without looking or run a red light, you are breaking the law and can fairly be
labeled a poor driver. But bad voting is harder to pinpoint—much harder.
Partisans on either side can claim with equal justification that it's crazy to
vote for candidate X rather than candidate Y. You can argue with your friend's
decision to support a candidate based on his environmental record when, in
your view, his terrible stance on corporate taxes disqualifies. him from
office. So it seems that voting mistakes are truly in the eye of the beholder.

What if it is a test about knowledge ? Economists, politicians, even physicist
don't agree with each others, but they are knowledgeable about their fields.
They know what are the existing theories, and they know what can be considered
a fact.

The problem with this is it create an oligarchy (which may not be a bad
thing), and it place the power of deciding who acceed to the oligarchy to its
members.

It can be good. The actual best system of government (IMO) is a
tyrany/oligarchy where people in power work for the greater good, but it is
difficult to achieve and unstable (what if the successor don't have great
intention ?)

The other way is to have a direct democracy, but many people in the population
don't have time to think about new laws, and to gain knowledge on specifics
subjects, so they delegate to representatives.

If the check and balances work in this new indirect democratic system, and the
majority of people are educated enough to choose their representative wisely,
we have a working system.

We shouldn't put tests to access to voting, we should make sure most voters
would be able to pass them, by having a good educating system.

