Some kind of Test before Voting?

[ag]

Most horrible idea.

[ag]

Voting should be mandatory.

Not the best idea either. People should have the right to abstain.

[ag]

Voting should be mandatory.

In the meantime, voluntary voting should be as easy as possible, and your suggestion would discourage the apathetic from voting by making them jump through meaningless hoops before they gain the ability to vote.

I'm not trying to discourage the apathetic with meaningless hoops.

I'm trying to discourage the unintelligent with a meaningful test.

What do you think should be the penalty for failing to vote? Say I think "the whole system is rigged" and refuse to vote.

Fine, jail time, public shaming?

Well, there are many countries with mandatory voting. In Peru your ID is invalid without a stamp that you get at the voting precinct. If you do not have that stamp, you need to pay a fine before you can so much as use it in a bank. In Australia, I believe, you get a ticket for smthg like 20 bucks. You have a right to explain why you did not vote in writing instead of paying the fine. If a judge finds your explanation satisfactory, he waives the fine. Otherwise, you get a ticket for 50 bucks or so. That has been pretty much enough to get turnout well over 90% most of the time (they also have mandatory voter registration there).

[ag]

Once the "uninformed" are barred from vote, it, peculiarly, makes them instantly informed of a crucial feature of the political system they live in. Namely, that the system, in which they are denied participation, is run by their enemies. Arguably, at that point this becomes, by far, the most important feature of the political system - though a lot of the "informed" might be unaware of it. So, at that point one would have to recognize that the "uninformed" are much better informed than the "informed". Hence, it is the "uninformed" that should then get the vote, while the "informed" should be denied it.

Of course, in practice, this is, indeed, what happens. It is usually known as "revolution". A nasty bloody process it is, though. Perhaps, we should stick to letting everyone vote?

[ag]

If only all informed people would voluntarily vote and all uninformed people would stay home...

...democracy would be worse off.

Seeing all these self-professed leftists fantasize about kicking out "uninformed" voters makes me sick. You gleefully trample on the most basic and sacred progressive values. TNF might well be right about American liberals being a bunch of hypocritical elitists, after all.

How would democracy be worse if the electorate were more informed, now?

Not sure where uninformed voting is in the progressive handbook.

It all depends on whether you think elections are about aggregating information or preferences. If it is the latter, than, surely, asking people to identify the capital of the United States is not going to do much to improve the quality of the electorate. Actually, upon consideration, I am not certain that asking people to identify the capital of the United States would improve the quality of the electorate in any sense.

[ag]

O.K. here's the deal. We do indeed institute a 'test before voting'. And it works like this: if you think that such a test is a good idea, then you are prohibited from voting. Fair?

Absolutely!