Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
I mean, this already happens. Everywhere.
Obviously the historical implications of a literacy test (or poll tax, or anything related) would make it untenable. However, it's kind of disingenuous to think that the opposite of "knowledge tests" doesn't happen, as well - candidates and parties have preyed on an uneducated electorate for centuries now, and we find that not only acceptable, but borderline commendable ("what a great politician/organizer/etc.").
I doubt anybody is against a more-educated electorate in general, right? We just want it in the form of giving education to the unlearned. Is that actually reasonable?
Are people better off because they have the privilege of making a silly, uninformed vote more likely dictated by personal biases and party lines than by any semblance of understanding about the ramifications of that vote?
Or, conversely - would anything even change if we instituted a de facto intellectual floor for voting (even ignoring the potential for institutional racism involved)?
|
Let me be more clear, if you want 'literate' voters, pay for them to take a standardized voter literacy class with a government approved standardized test.
As far their voting biases, that is up to the citizen, isn't it? Regardless if they are better off or not. We already saw how personal biases and beliefs played a significant role in the last election among all lines, racial, educational and socioeconomic lines.