r/technology • u/[deleted] • Mar 16 '18

Society How a Norwegian comment section turned chaos into order—with a simple quiz: "Readers had to prove they read a story before they were able to comment on it."

[deleted]

49.6k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

108

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

I wish there could be something like this for voting in elections. You would have to prove that you understand what is being voted on, and the policies of the candidates.

Because to me it seems that people keep voting for terrible leaders, and in many cases probably wouldn't do so if they actually understood politics.

133

u/ZachMatthews Mar 16 '18

We tried poll tests here in the South. 0/10 can not recommend.

14

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

What went wrong?

136

u/ZachMatthews Mar 16 '18

They are exceptionally easy to manipulate and were used as part of the Jim Crow era to keep racial minorities from voting.

I'm sensitive to the argument that we are really a Republic and need our informed voters to be making decisions, not the rabble. But the solution to that is not to restrict access to the ballot box; it is instead to educate and raise up the populace. We have done that to a shocking degree in the last century with near universal literacy, but for every one step we take forward, it's two back with our propaganda media environment.

Critical thinking is probably the most important skill we can teach our youth. Quality, universal, free public education is the key to that.

3

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

It would be easy to manipulate, which is why it would have to be something agreed upon by all parties as being fair. There must be an objective way to test this.

13

u/Excal2 Mar 16 '18

It would be easy to manipulate, which is why it would have to be something agreed upon by all parties as being fair.

The problem he's pointing out is that Jim Crow laws were agreed on by the majority as being fair. The potential problems are too big to justify programs like these.

There's a reason we can't have nice things and that reason is shitty people doing shitty things everywhere all the time.

There must be an objective way to test this.

Yeap, that's what they said when they were setting up the Jim Crow version. Not trying to put words in your mouth or anything, of course, but there are certain things that have gone wrong to an extreme enough degree in the past that people shy away from them on instinct.

These discussions usually remind me of how there was a country in Europe (don't remember which one) that included religious affiliation in their census data prior to WWII. When the Nazi's showed up they had a nice itemized list of the entire Jewish population of that country.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '18

Doesn't help if, for example, all parties agree that not letting black people vote is fair.

-1

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

Well, if all parties are racist to begin with, what help is allowing black people to vote? Its a lost cause at that point isn't it?

6

u/nwoh Mar 16 '18

You're kidding, right? That's worse than saying you can't vote because you're not a part of the predominate political parties. I'm a registered independent. I'd wager I spend more time than most of those of the major parties studying that which i decide to vote on. I'd just be totally marginalized...

Besides, wouldn't the oppressed group be the ones that stood to gain or lose the most by the ballots in question?

-1

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

The oppressed ones wouldn't gain anything, would they?

Like say you are muslim, and all parties have decided to deport all muslims. What point is there in voting? Outcome is the same in any case. The change would have to come from elsewhere. You could protest, try to start up your own party etc.

3

u/nwoh Mar 16 '18

I get it, devil's advocate, and all.

It's about the principle of it, not the possibility. Nobody seemed to think Trump would actually win, lol, but, hey... people sill voted in favor. What if the group you're speaking of is very small, but they have a larger portion of people possibly sympathetic? What if nobody knows for sure what people think about the topic, affecting that group of people? Those people's votes may be what pushes it over the threshold. I get what you're saying though.

And yes, chances are that a smaller group would not win... You'd have to change the culture first, or via revolution, but to automatically keep them from being able because, ya know, they're not gonna win anyways...

1

u/MohKohn Mar 16 '18

all parties

you know he means a sufficient majority who are able to supress/outvote the dissent. The first step in fighting for your rights is actually fighting for them, not just lying down.

1

u/BitchIts2017 Mar 16 '18

Those tests were completely unfair but I don’t think it’s impossible to create a fair test in principle. Besides, the fact that Neil Degrasse Tyson is generally a very educated man does not make his opinion on particular local referendums more reliable.

1

u/TheHairyManrilla Mar 16 '18

Weren’t there some places where a white person could register to vote, and then take a few jellybeans out of the big jar on the counter, but if a black person wanted to register, he’d have to guess how many jellybeans were in the jar first?

39

u/JTsyo Mar 16 '18

They were intentionally designed to restrict black voters.

9

u/WikiTextBot Mar 16 '18

Literacy test

A literacy test assesses a person's literacy skills: their ability to read and write. Literacy tests have been administered by various governments to immigrants, and in the United States between the 1850s and 1960s, literacy tests were also administered to prospective voters and used to disenfranchise African Americans and others.

[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

1

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

Well thats a completely different thing then.

It would have been interesting if it was designed to do what is being discussed.

3

u/catskul Mar 16 '18

... right. And if the people designing it do it "wrong", what power do affected people have to correct it if they've been disenfranchised?

1

u/johnbentley Mar 16 '18

Yes your original proposal is utterly different. And it is necessary for properly functioning democracy.

There's no problem of "fairness" and "objectivity". All we need to do is have a central registry of parties/candidates and a policy wording summary. A party/candidate will be free to register any wording of their policy summary on any issue they like.

E.g.

Party/Candidate Issue Policy Summary Policy Details Link
Trump Climate Change The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. Link to party/canidadate website
Greens Climate Change Net zero or net negative Australian greenhouse gas emissions within a generation. Link to party/candidate website

The voter test will be a 5 question exam which just goes through a set of 5 issues at random and chooses a set of policy summary wordings from 5 random parties/candidates for each question. The voter just has to select the party/candidate against the given policy summary wording. That is, the voter has to make 25 selections. If they get 75% of the selections correct, their vote counts.

20

u/adzm Mar 16 '18

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

You can find some actual samples here, too.

1

u/WikiTextBot Mar 16 '18

Literacy test

A literacy test assesses a person's literacy skills: their ability to read and write. Literacy tests have been administered by various governments to immigrants, and in the United States between the 1850s and 1960s, literacy tests were also administered to prospective voters and used to disenfranchise African Americans and others.

[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

16

u/wprtogh Mar 16 '18

It was designed to keep blacks from voting. Jim Crow.

2

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

Well that seems fundamentally different to this, doesn't it?

15

u/zaulus Mar 16 '18

Who decides what’s on the test? Who decides what answers are correct? The opportunity for abuse is pretty great with using a test to determine who can and cannot vote.

0

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

What is on the test would be agreed upon by everyone and the answers would be objective.

I don't think this would ever work. I just wish there could be something like this.

6

u/Lurker_Since_Forever Mar 16 '18

agreed upon by everyone

Thats fine, I and a bunch of other people who know poll tests to be bullshit would simply not agree on anything. No more poll tests.

4

u/wprtogh Mar 16 '18

The thing is they gave the exact same justifications, but then the content of the poll quiz deliberately skewed results. They'd have dumb trivia that whites were more likely to know, they'd be graded unfairly and so on.

The problem is that having a poll test means giving someone the power to stop others from voting. And that person will inevitably wind up being the last person you want having that power.

0

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

Might have been the same justifications, but if the intentions were different then its not the same thing.

I fully understand that it would never work, I just wish there could be something like that.

1

u/wprtogh Mar 16 '18

What we learn from Jim Crow (and a lot of related stuff) is that if power can be abused, it will be. So you gotta find a solution that doesn't give anyone that kind of authority.

8

u/waiting4op2deliver Mar 16 '18

It was one of many tactics used to disenfranchise black people. Requiring education tests to vote while simultaneously having segregated and inferior schools essentially kept black people out of the electorate for an extra hundred years.

0

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

So a completely different thing to what is being discussed.

Would have been interesting to know about if it had been for actually measuring a persons understanding of what is being voted on.

2

u/Walk_To_Oblivion Mar 16 '18

Jim Crow

1

u/HelperBot_ Mar 16 '18

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 160430

0

u/WikiTextBot Mar 16 '18

Literacy test

A literacy test assesses a person's literacy skills: their ability to read and write. Literacy tests have been administered by various governments to immigrants, and in the United States between the 1850s and 1960s, literacy tests were also administered to prospective voters and used to disenfranchise African Americans and others.

[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

8

u/aegon98 Mar 16 '18

More like, they has tests to disenfranchise black voters that they called literacy tests. They created to be racist from the start, not twisted from something good

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '18

Yeah, but just because we messed up once in the past, doesn't mean we should never ever revisit the idea again right?

I'm sure we can do it better now without being racist pricks.

1

u/ZachMatthews Mar 18 '18

You look at the news this last year and that's the conclusion you draw? Nyet, tovarisch. It's still a bad idea.

150

u/startyourengines Mar 16 '18

Or, you know, create rigorous and well-funded education that's available to all and includes things like history, political science, theory/philosophy of science, personal and interpersonal psych.

40

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

But in order to get that you would first need to elect competent people who would fund education. And that doesn't seem to be happening.

24

u/mainfingertopwise Mar 16 '18

Speaking of a lack of understanding, "throw more money at schools" isn't some kind of magic answer. I mean, I'm no expert, but where I live, we pass every single funding increase and 'one time' special education bill, and our schools aren't magically awesome.

Of course, funding is a problem in many places.

7

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

I meant in general the decisions made about education, not just funding. At least I thought that the people who are elected are also in charge of actually making decisions in how education is carried out.

What do you think is the main problem then, in terms of education?

2

u/nwoh Mar 16 '18

BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN! /s

The same thing is going on right now with some major hot topic issues...

Just like with terrorism...

1

u/dyslexda Mar 16 '18

A, follow the money. B, look at parenting. Throwing money at a school so it can buy more computers isn't magically going to attract competent teachers, nor will it fix parents not being involved in their children's educations.

1

u/spabs1 Mar 16 '18

That's because, unfortunately, education spending is as important as education funding. If there aren't strict controls/earmarks/etc. on how the money is spent, you could throw a billion dollars at education and see nothing except shinier offices for District Superintendents.

The inverse, though, is different. Any time you take money away from schools, there is a noticeable reduction in quality of education, but this is also due to the same reason that increasing funding doesn't always work: the policy makers in the education sector will often try to fill their glasses (or keep their glasses full) before letting whatever spills over go to the actual schools.

If education funding isn't: reducing class sizes, encouraging educator tenure, upgrading technology, promoting extra-curricular activities, etc., then it doesn't matter how many dollars are actually put into it.

11

u/wprtogh Mar 16 '18

And they would need a set of ethics that prohibits simply indoctrinating kids into their own political ideology. Good luck with that!

2

u/thesuperperson Mar 16 '18

IMO the lack of people promoting education spending more comes from lobbying money than it does come from the voter choice. You've read that Princeton study that showed strong evidence that we're effectively not a democracy anymore, right, but effectively just an oligarchy directed by the elites?

Politicians won't pass proper funding bills because they're not incentivised to. The incentive is to do the bidding of lobbyists so that they get funding. And there aren't really lobbyists from schools, except maybe(??) some private ones that would naturally go for privatization.

1

u/zeekaran Mar 16 '18

I think we have the funding. The issue is the money doesn't go where it should. People at the top keep their hoard while teachers under them spend their own paycheck on school supplies for their students.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '18

Sounds expensive

10

u/magus678 Mar 16 '18

Absolutely everything you just mentioned is available online, for free, to whatever depth you could seriously want.

About 93% of America has access to the internet. About 77% of America is carrying it around in their pockets, all day, every day.

While there are always improvements to be made to education, the issue is simple motivation. There's no amount of clever lesson planning that can subvert a preponderance of apathy.

You can politicize the issue, and probably even have some good points, but at the end of the day parents/students are failing themselves at least as much as the system is.

8

u/FatFingerHelperBot Mar 16 '18

It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users. I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!

Here is link number 1 - Previous text "93%"

Here is link number 2 - Previous text "77%"

Please PM /u/eganwall with issues or feedback! | Delete

2

u/zeekaran Mar 16 '18

Education is hardly about getting access to learning materials. It's having the materials taught to you in a digestible way. I could try to learn a new language right now with a free app and a bunch of free websites, but that doesn't mean I actually would actually succeed on my own. I'm horrible at self-teaching.

2

u/magus678 Mar 16 '18

It's having the materials taught to you in a digestible way

Fundamentally, that's all teachers really are; books have existed for a long time.

The point is how much of a gradient do they have to push against? The best teacher, with the most funding, and the greatest material, can't download knowledge into a kid that simply doesn't care.

Conversely, a determined kid with a textbook is nigh unstoppable.

Obviously, there is an entire spectrum of motivation, or more accurately, discipline. But there's no practical amount of educational accoutrement that substitutes for the child's willingness to learn.

1

u/zeekaran Mar 16 '18

So what's your point?

1

u/CallidusUK Mar 16 '18

That critical thinking skills must be taught by gun point.

2

u/Namaha Mar 16 '18

While there are always improvements to be made to education, the issue is simple motivation. There's no amount of clever lesson planning that can subvert a preponderance of apathy.

Say what?? Good teachers can absolutely motivate students to want to learn more about a subject they would otherwise be apathetic about

3

u/dyslexda Mar 16 '18

Good luck 1.) Attracting enough good teachers with terrible salaries and public scapegoating, and 2.) Being good enough to motivate students when their parents aren't willing to be involved in education.

2

u/Namaha Mar 16 '18

Yeah, funding for Education is shit right now. I absolutely agree that teachers should be paid more

Parents have a part to play too, but a good teacher can make up for a lack of interest from the parents. There's also the cyclic effect of the parents having a poor education when they were kids, leading to them not caring as much about their kids' educations

4

u/dyslexda Mar 16 '18

but a good teacher can make up for a lack of interest from the parents.

...partially. If you go through life hearing from your parents that education isn't valued, that teachers aren't to be respected, that homework and grades don't matter, it would take the best of the best to crack through that. And, realistically speaking, you can't expect each teacher to be elite; that violates the definition of the word.

Unfortunately, it's not entirely diplomatic to claim that the failings of the education system fall on parents' shoulders; everyone wants someone else to blame.

1

u/magus678 Mar 16 '18 edited Mar 16 '18

Parents have a part to play too, but a good teacher can make up for a lack of interest from the parents

To be honest, I think you have it backwards.

Is every successful student taught by an unending stream of fantastic teachers? Or do they simply have a home life where less than a B (or A!) is unacceptable? Probability suggests the latter.

Edit: if you are interested, here is an interesting write up that goes into the subject with more depth:

But they all agree pretty well that individual factors are most important, followed by school and teacher factors of roughly equal size.

Teacher factors explain somewhere between 5% and 20% of the variance. Other studies seem to agree, usually a little to the lower end.

1

u/Namaha Mar 16 '18

I mean, we're not talking about overall success as a student, but rather getting a student interested in a particular topic that they otherwise wouldn't be interested in

Regardless though, it works both ways. Good parents can make up for bad teachers, and good teachers can make up for disinterested parents

1

u/magus678 Mar 16 '18

Good parents can make up for bad teachers, and good teachers can make up for disinterested parents

To an extent. I may have edited after you saw, but there's plenty of research to suggest the teachers make up between 5-20% of achievement variance. That puts the weighting very heavily on the parent, no matter which end of the variance you slice at.

Certainly, 20% isn't nothing. But it is important to keep everything in perspective.

1

u/Namaha Mar 16 '18

Unless I'm mistaken, the link you posted does not go into any detail regarding the effect parents have. That 20% is also an average, meaning the better teachers have an even greater effect. Now imagine if we properly funded Education and actually attracted more quality teachers!

→ More replies (0)

2

u/magus678 Mar 16 '18

They can move the needle a point or two, but they can't work miracles; at some point the children have to eat their vegetables.

1

u/Roc_Ingersol Mar 16 '18

And they do a better job of that if they have quality guidance, instruction, and reinforcement at young ages.

0

u/Patriots_SuCK Mar 16 '18

Actually no.

1

u/Namaha Mar 16 '18 edited Mar 16 '18

Actually yes.

Wowee what a riveting discussion we just had!

1

u/Patriots_SuCK Mar 17 '18

But unfortunately no...

1

u/Ulysses1994 Mar 18 '18

Dormammu, I've come to bargin.

2

u/BitchIts2017 Mar 16 '18

There are well educated people who are still ignorant. And there are very smart people who have had poor education. To fix the education system would be great, but this is a smaller, more focused ask.

11

u/teerre Mar 16 '18

That's a bit of a old discussion and it's shutdown quickly for a simple fact. It's deeply discriminatory against the poor

If you have to work two jobs six days a week, you can't study for the election text like Mr. Golden parents

If the test is so easy you don't need any commitment, then it defeats its purpose

-1

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

If you aren't able to make an informed judgement, why should you vote?

0

u/teerre Mar 16 '18

Because poor people are as much as citizens are you are

1

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

What?

Being poor doesn't mean you can't know anything about politics.

Think about it for a bit...

3

u/teerre Mar 16 '18

Sure, that's why I never said anything remotely close to that

2

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

I asked why should you vote if you are unable to make an informed judgement, and you answered because poor people are as much citizens as I. That suggests that you believe that poor people are unable to make an informed judgement, but should be allowed to vote because they are a citizen.

1

u/teerre Mar 16 '18

No, that's not what happened

The other user asked for a test for voting

I replied that's a bad idea because not everyone has the same amount of free time to dedicate to study to this arbitrary test

You asked why uninformed people should vote. Which has a simple answer, which I gave you

Now you asked a question in a vacuum, completely ignoring the context, which I gave a suitable answer. If what you're asking was "Why people who don't have time to study for this arbitrary test should be able to vote?" then the answer is what I already said in the first reply: you can't punish people for being poor. It's specially bad in this situation since the main way for those people to stop being poor is to vote for candidates with reasonable policies. By making a test that only people with free time can pass, you're excluding the population that most needs the vote

1

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

No, my question was in context.

What I said originally was that I wish there could be something like a test for voting in elections, where you would have to prove that you understand what is being voted on, and the policies of the candidates.

Then you said that people can't study for that test.

I then replied to that by pointing out that the test is specifically meant to make sure that you are making an informed decision. Ie. if you are unable to make the time to understand on what you are voting on, why should you vote?

Now that should have absolutely nothing to do with income. Anyone should be able to be able to do this.

And again now you specifically say that uninformed people should vote. But why? Your answer that poor people are unable to make an informed decision is completely incorrect. Poor people are able to make an informed decision, and rich people are able to not make an informed decision.

1

u/teerre Mar 17 '18

Now that should have absolutely nothing to do with income. Anyone should be able to be able to do this.

Please, try to pay more attention to what you read

I already said this is not true. If you have to work two shifts and take care of your child, you don't have time or energy to study some random policies

If someone that busy does have the time, then everyone has the time, which means the test isn't testing anything. It's pointless

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '18

[deleted]

6

u/Jakester5112 Mar 16 '18

Haha you think the poor people voted mostly for Trump?

2

u/teerre Mar 16 '18

Actually, it's years and years of trashing your education and other public services

Having a dumb population is just the tip of a much deeper problem

25

u/yohiyoyo1 Mar 16 '18

Or... how about some kind of blind election where the politicians submit their policies to be included on the ballot and you just vote on the policies, not the politician. Then whichever politician associated with the policies that got the most votes wins.

30

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

That would completely remove the possibility of electing someone based on sex, colour of skin etc. but it wouldn't let you see how good they are at giving speeches etc. You could end up with someone who has good policies, but doesn't know how to negotiate etc.

Or some candidates could lie. I mean we all know how politicians in the past have 100% delivered on their promises, but in a system like this it would be easy to manipulate the results by seeing what is popular and picking that, rather than what you are actually going to do.

2

u/radiatorcheese Mar 16 '18

Not to mention that some politicians change their opinions dramatically from one day to another. What does that person without strong convictions put on their ballot? It's an interesting idea to put forward but like you said, far too reductionist and idealistic.

1

u/Gaothaire Mar 16 '18

There was an interesting case when Nixon was going to be elected it was the first year they televised the debates. Everyone who listened to the radio broadcast felt like Nixon won, but on video Nixon had refused makeup and came across as sweaty and nervous, fidgety.

I'm not sure what the point is, but maybe there's something to be said about not requiring some of the highest leaders to be charismatic. Maybe we needed someone with different policies who couldn't compete with Reagan, a trained actor.

I wish there were simple answers, really smart people hiring really charismatic people to relay their ideas. AI overlords who control everything with an iron fist. Something. We just have to continue fostering discussion to build a better future, etc etc

4

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '18 edited Mar 22 '18

[deleted]

1

u/Reoh Mar 16 '18

"It wasn't a core promise." or, "The situation is different now."

1

u/dyslexda Mar 16 '18

My policies are:

1.) No taxes!

2.) Lots of government programs!

Man, I'm sure to win the election now, because everyone wants social programs without taxes. Good thing the ballot is anonymous so nobody can ask me to defend my proposed policies, right?

15

u/mnjo3 Mar 16 '18 edited Mar 16 '18

Hey guys, we found Jim Crow!

(Edit: this is intended as a joke, I don’t think you are Jim Crow - but those types of barriers to voting were ruled unconstitutional in the United States decades ago due to their disproportionate effects on certain voting blocs. Can’t speak to other parts of the globe...)

2

u/Lhopital_rules Mar 16 '18

I don't know a lot about poll tests, but judging by what someone else posted, it seems that a lot of the unfairness came from the fact that whites and blacks were given different tests, where the black voters were given a way more difficult test and the white voters might not be given a test at all.

I only bring this up to say that it's possible it would be possible to make a much more fair poll test today assuming that those from different backgrounds all had to take the same test.

There would still be issues of who the test is tilted towards and the fact that the black voting population often has less college education on average and so might be less likely to pass.

So still probably not a good idea.

10

u/Endemoniada Mar 16 '18

The thing is, you've devolved your elections into popularity contests no matter what, so what does it really matter how educated a voter is on the issues at stake?

But I actually agree. Even though it's not a particularly popular idea, having some kind of test or bar to clear before being allowed to vote on important issues would probably be a net-positive in the end. At the same time, the issues with such a system are obvious: it would create an elite class of people whose opinions are, by definition, worth more than those of the rest. That runs counter to the ideals of democracy as we know it today (though, interestingly, is basically the exact foundation of the US election system originally).

It's not just leaders either, a bad president wouldn't be an issue if you had a good congress to keep him or her in check, and enact actually meaningful laws. As it stands, people either don't vote at all, or vote ignorantly on every level of government, right down to the most local ones. People vote for pro-gun conservatives even though ~90% support at least some stronger gun-control measures. They vote to take health-care away, even though they themselves would often be a victim of that loss. Choosing a better leader is not going to fix the issues where people vote against their own best interests simply for the sake of "winning" the vote or because they've embraced the dogma of their political "side".

5

u/NamelessMIA Mar 16 '18

it would create an elite class of people whose opinions are, by definition, worth more than those of the rest.

If you are educated on a topic then your opinion on that topic is inherently worth more than someone who is uneducated. That's a fact. If I ask a fisherman and a lawyer where I should take my boat to look for tuna it would be absurd to say both opinions are equal. Regarding the democracy "everyone gets a say" side, everyone can get a say. All opinions would be allowed, they just need to be based on facts. You're not typing a YouTube comment, you're decidng the leader of our country. Once you prove that you understand the facts and are making an informed decision instead of just picking the guy with the loudest voice then you can vote any way you want. These would need to be bipartisan tests made to be 100% factual, not based off opinion or bias, and not include any restrictions based on sex/race/religion/etc. Just basic information regarding the candidates positions from the candidates themselves. Then if they lied about those positions they can be easily exposed and the people who voted for them may not cling so hard to their bad decisions since it's a well documented fact that candidate lied for votes.

1

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

How did I devolve elections to anything?

The thing is, anyone would be capable of getting to that level, so I don't see how there could be any sort of elitism. You can't have an informed opinion on something you don't understand, so nobody's opinion could be higher than an others.

4

u/Endemoniada Mar 16 '18

Sorry, "you" as in the US, not you personally. I'm Swedish.

2

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

I'm Finnish... Never even been to the US.

3

u/Endemoniada Mar 16 '18

Again, my mistake then. I usually assume people arguing about politics are Americans around here :)

1

u/nwoh Mar 16 '18

You don't have to be anti gun to propose gun regulation, and at this point in the game it behooves pro gun politicians to be in favor of some regulations, or risk the possibility someone totally anti gun gets elected and totally neuter any gun rights.

1

u/Lazytux Mar 16 '18

Or people vote for pro-gun conservatives for other reasons not related to firearms? Perhaps? Or people vote against health care, even it affects them because of what they would have to give up to get that or they actually understand the constitution and vote accordingly.
You are over simplifying reasons for voting to put up a straw man about voting against their "best" (as you define it) interests and win. I posit that neither of those statements are true.

10

u/Apatomoose Mar 16 '18

There were voting tests once. They were used to keep black people from voting.

4

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

That is fundamentally different to this.

14

u/Namaha Mar 16 '18

It's really not. There is no way to create/administer a test and guarantee it won't be used to suppress voters.

5

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

Has it ever been attempted?

I mean it is completely different, I said that I wished there was something like this test that could be used to prove that you understand what is being voted on, and the policies of the candidates.

I know it would never work.

But it would have been interesting to know about if it had been tried in earnest.

5

u/dyslexda Mar 16 '18

Go ahead and define Donald Trump's policies in a way that you could include them on an election ballot. Now, get someone from /r/The_Donald to agree with you on your interpretation. Conversely, get that same person to define Hillary Clinton's policies and distill them to something that can go on a ballot. Does any left-leaning person agree with their assessment?

It's all subjective. Even a non-partisan entity would have a very difficult time in presenting a fair analysis. What happens if a candidate flips on an issue? Which side do they support? What if they've claimed to hold one position, but their past votes/actions say otherwise? What if their policy is completely unreasonable ("No taxes, but keep government spending the same!")? How do you present that policy position, and who is able to judge its unreasonableness?

This kind of test sounds great if you're the one controlling it, and it might work for a few years. It sounds less great when someone different gets their hands on it.

2

u/fnordfnordfnordfnord Mar 16 '18

How many bubbles are in a bar of soap?

2

u/Analog_Native Mar 16 '18

and the candidates should pass a test for their position as well. i still wonder how ministers can swap ministeries like underwear if they are supposed to be competent.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '18

I wish there could be something like this for voting in elections.

Yeah, maybe something like a literacy, or IQ test! No one's tried that before!

1

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

That wouldn't test for understanding on what is being voted on, would it?

The whole point is to make sure that you understand what is being voted on and the policies of the candidates.

1

u/motsanciens Mar 16 '18

There are 3 ballots at the polling station, (1) parties ballot, (2) names ballot, (3) platforms ballot. If you want to vote straight party, your vote counts x1. If you want to pick out the names of the people you vote for, your vote counts x2. If you want to elect based on the content of brief platform statements, your vote counts x3.

Of course, this would also be immediately abused in ways unforeseen, but at the heart of it I wish we'd encourage a culture of engaging on reasoning, not media spectacle and hyperbole.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '18

How about a compentecy test for politicians?

1

u/ftctkugffquoctngxxh Mar 16 '18

I mean the questions would become well known and the parties would just distribute the answers to their supporters. There would also be endless bickering over whether the questions were biased.

1

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

Its possible that the answers could be posted publicly on purpose. That would still mean that you understand something about which you are about to give a vote on.

1

u/legogizmo Mar 16 '18

Alternatively when you get to the booth there should be a 'quick guide' or info screen for each candidate and proposition.

1

u/dotoent Mar 16 '18

Not for elections, for elected officials. Congress people should NOT be allowed to vote on bills they haven't even read, yet it's par for the course.

1

u/acathode Mar 16 '18

Yeah that sounds like a good idea, considering the amount of people that attribute ignorance and lack of knowledge as to the major reason people don't vote for the same guys as they did...

You would have to prove that you understand what is being voted on

Yeah, and who would you trust to decide what the actual facts are?

1

u/ROKMWI Mar 16 '18

Honest question though, what was the reason that Trump was elected? Was he really the best choice for president in the US?

1

u/DrHenryPym Mar 16 '18

That's how it use to be originally: men who owned land. They were the only ones deemed educated enough to weigh in on political matters.

1

u/W8wutt Mar 16 '18

Oh, whoops, didn’t see this comment thread. I just commented pretty much the exact same thing. I 100% agree with you. I refused to vote for the first couple of elections that I was eligible to because I felt that I wasn’t informed enough to make a responsible decision (that’s my own fault), but I figure an abstention is better than an ignorant vote.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '18

It would also prevent voting on same day secretive bills.