NationStates Jolt Archive

People who don't know what is going on in the country and the world shouldn't be voting in elections. It's as simple as that.

By the resolution "Making Elections Effective," voters in countries which have elections would take a test during their registration to make sure they have a basic level of political awareness.

In the real world, this would mean that people who believed that we found WMD in Iraq would not vote, for example.

I urge support for this resolution.

People are more inclined to support you when you don't post the same thing twice and annoy people.

How would you select who would and wouldn't vote?

The test would just be about basic knowledge of current events. Those who failed, and didn't demonstrate that they knew anything about what was going on in the country and the world, would not be registered voters.

People are more inclined to support you when you don't post the same thing twice and annoy people.

My fault bro - I'm pretty new to NationStates so I wanted to post my message with a more effective subject and more concise language.

The test would just be about basic knowledge of current events. Those who failed, and didn't demonstrate that they knew anything about what was going on in the country and the world, would not be registered voters.

I would just go to a special evening school to learn all the basic definitions about the current events.

The test would just be about basic knowledge of current events. Those who failed, and didn't demonstrate that they knew anything about what was going on in the country and the world, would not be registered voters.

I would just go to a special evening school to learn all the basic definitions about the current events.

That's fine - it would accomplish the same thing: voters who took the time to learn about the current events would be more informed and make for more effective elections.

Who would make this test?

This reminds me of the literacy tests they had in the United States they had not too long ago to determine voting rights. They were very discriminatory, especially toward black people. We will not approve this resolution and will vote against it if it reaches the floor. We will resign from the UN if it passes.

Confederacy of the Isles UN Delegate
Hung Tony

This reminds me of the literacy tests they had in the United States they had not too long ago to determine voting rights. They were very discriminatory, especially toward black people. We will not approve this resolution and will vote against it if it reaches the floor. We will resign from the UN if it passes.

Confederacy of the Isles UN Delegate
Hung Tony

Instead of a test on "knowledge" of current events (which would really be just a test to see if people agreed with the opinions of the tests author), the only function of which would be to exclude certain political viewpoints, how about a straightforward test of basic intelligence to qualify voters? Of course, that would exclude liberals, but we could live with that.

These tests aren't literacy tests - the objective of them is to be unbiased. People of all races are informed, and people of all races are uninformed. It says in the resolution that it would not be a racist literacy test - my nation would not support that at all.

By giving a general intelligence test, like an IQ test, then nations would be being very discriminatory. The point of this test is to qualify voters based on their knowledge of policy to make sure all voters are informed about the issues they are voting on.

This resolution would force politicians to rely less on rhetoric designed to appeal to the masses and more on intelligent arguments designed to influence informed voters.

I think what you're trying to do here is take away your own right to vote? I mean, a basic knowledge of history would tell you that this is simply not a wise course of action. Similar tests have frequently, if not always, been used to concentrate power among those who already have it. Concentration of power has always led to tyranny.

Who is best equipped to represent the people, other than the people themselves? You might make the argument that a think tank, noble minority, or even a king would know better than the people what they want, but what guarantee do we have that this new ruler will act in the people's interest? One of the few constants of human history is that people can always be expected to act in their own interests, whatever those interests may be. Any time someone does something which seems to act against their own interests, it is either because they made a mistake or because you do not understand their interests.

The right to vote is among the most critical in a democratic government. If the government is not elected by the people, there will be no grounded cause for the government to serve the people. If the government has no grounded cause to serve the people, it will eventually cease to do so, and that's where tyrrany comes in.

There are two ways to weaken the voice of the people in an elected system: narrowing the list of those who may vote and narrowing the list of those who may be voted for. I will staunchly oppose any attempt to do either.

You should teach everyone what's going on.

I think what you're trying to do here is take away your own right to vote? I mean, a basic knowledge of history would tell you that this is simply not a wise course of action. Similar tests have frequently, if not always, been used to concentrate power among those who already have it. Concentration of power has always led to tyranny.

Who is best equipped to represent the people, other than the people themselves? You might make the argument that a think tank, noble minority, or even a king would know better than the people what they want, but what guarantee do we have that this new ruler will act in the people's interest? One of the few constants of human history is that people can always be expected to act in their own interests, whatever those interests may be. Any time someone does something which seems to act against their own interests, it is either because they made a mistake or because you do not understand their interests.

The right to vote is among the most critical in a democratic government. If the government is not elected by the people, there will be no grounded cause for the government to serve the people. If the government has no grounded cause to serve the people, it will eventually cease to do so, and that's where tyrrany comes in.

There are two ways to weaken the voice of the people in an elected system: narrowing the list of those who may vote and narrowing the list of those who may be voted for. I will staunchly oppose any attempt to do either.

On the contrary, the United States was founded upon the principles of democracy in a limited form. This was the purpose of the electoral college. When the United States was founded, electors did not vote based on their constituents - this is a trend that has only developed recently. Electors would take into account the opinion of their constituency, and vote based on their judgment. This plan is similar, except that the ability to vote would be expanded from just a small number of electors to any members of the electorate who are aware of the political issues at hand.

Instead of a test on "knowledge" of current events (which would really be just a test to see if people agreed with the opinions of the tests author), the only function of which would be to exclude certain political viewpoints, how about a straightforward test of basic intelligence to qualify voters? Of course, that would exclude liberals, but we could live with that.

It would harm African-Americans (who, according to the Bell Curve by... someone and someone, two conservative authors, have a lower average IQ, although that hardly indicates that any particular African-American has a low IQ), but it would hardly exclude liberals as a whole. Interestingly enough, the same book had a chart indicating which SD of voters tended to vote for which party. Care to take a guess as to which party had lower intelligence voters? Hint: the authors weren't happy about the results.

The Bell Curve is garbage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I think this is actually a very good idea. If you dont know anything about the issues at stake, then you have no business voting. And the people whose replies i read make no sense at all and i believe your completly perplexed as to what the Resolution is. So as a good fellow leader ...i will clarify.

-Voters need to show basic knowledge of current events to be able to make and intelligent and informed decision as to who the leader of the free world and the most powerful man on earth is going to be for the next 4 (four) years. It's that simple.The only people that will be kept from voting are the people living under a rock and who have no idea the current political and economic scene in the country.

And after reading your replies, i have a question.

How will this resolution be discriminatory against race, nationality, and/or color?

Thanks Little Cuba you summed it up pretty nicely - I don't think the resolution would discriminate. You should encourage your regional delegate to support it.

The test would just be about basic knowledge of current events. Those who failed, and didn't demonstrate that they knew anything about what was going on in the country and the world, would not be registered voters.

I would just go to a special evening school to learn all the basic definitions about the current events.

Seriously! You would waste all that time just to pass this test. I know i wouldn't.

I do agree with the idea, but wouldn't supplying that test change game mechanics? So isn't it just a lost cause?

I do agree with the idea, but wouldn't supplying that test change game mechanics? So isn't it just a worthless cause?

Um, the only thing i can think of personally in this case in terms of game dynamocs is that is reduces political freedoms. And compensates by...err....? Although naturally I would love to have informed voters, who is going to make the test? The ruling party? If the current government of my province were to make a current events test be sure none of their opponents would pass it.

I do agree with the idea, but wouldn't supplying that test change game mechanics? So isn't it just a worthless cause?

Um, the only thing i can think of personally in this case in terms of game dynamocs is that is reduces political freedoms. And compensates by...err....? Although naturally I would love to have informed voters, who is going to make the test? The ruling party? If the current government of my province were to make a current events test be sure none of their opponents would pass it.

They would have to change the games code to not allow people who hadn't passed to vote on proposals. That would require changing the way things work wouldn't it?

The Bell Curve is garbage.

Respectfully, having read both the book and its detractors, and analyzing the statistics myself, and creating a curriculum around it, I would say that overall it isn't. Some of the conclusions it draws go too far based on too small a sample size, but overall it's solid statistical science. The authors are very careful to rebut criticisms before they're made.

For a (reasonably) old book, it's held up well.

It wouldn't really change the game mechanics too much I just thought it was a good idea and I wish it was applied in the real world.

The incredibly literate and cockily educated nation of Berkylvania wonders why you would want to stop there. Seeing as how you are advocating the formation of a ruling class, why not make it all official and say that all nations should be aristocracies. That way, you can be certain only the 'educated' will have anything to do with the running of the country, whereas the 'un-educated' will be out in the fields or in the factories where they belong.

Berkylvania will with calm certainty not support any resolution that so greatly interferes with national sovranty. While you may feel that it is a simple matter to separate individuals based on education, you offer no real criteria, testing approach or delivery system. If you are going to deny people voting rights many of them currently have, you're going to need to come up with a better rationale than "I don't like people who don't know at least as much as I do about stuff that I think is important."

The incredibly literate and cockily educated nation of Berkylvania wonders why you would want to stop there. Seeing as how you are advocating the formation of a ruling class, why not make it all official and say that all nations should be aristocracies. That way, you can be certain only the 'educated' will have anything to do with the running of the country, whereas the 'un-educated' will be out in the fields or in the factories where they belong.

Berkylvania will with calm certainty not support any resolution that so greatly interferes with national sovranty [SIC]. While you may feel that it is a simple matter to separate individuals based on education, you offer no real criteria, testing approach or delivery system. If you are going to deny people voting rights many of them currently have, you're going to need to come up with a better rationale than "I don't like people who don't know at least as much as I do about stuff that I think is important."

The point here is not to have an aristocracy of educated people ruling a country. It's not trying to separate people and jobs based on their level of education - the point is to make sure those who vote are politically aware. Elections would be much more effective if politicians changed their focus from pandering to the massive number of voters out there who do not vote based on the issues at hand to staking out clear and well-thought out policies and positions. The "Making Elections Effective" resolution currently proposed at the United Nations would serve to encourage intelligent and pertinent political debate within democratic nations.

Additionally, the idea that this resolution advocates a ruling class is misguided. A ruling class suggests that an exclusive group of people would take control of a country and prevent all others from having control - this is not true. The ultimate goal of this resolution is to get entire populaces to be aware of the political situations in their country and the world - any citizen that took the time to give critical thought to the issues at hand in their elections would be able to vote and enter the so-called "ruling class." If any member of a populace can join the group, as is intended by the resolution, then the idea of a prohibitive and exclusive "ruling class" is incorrect.

It would harm African-Americans (who, according to the Bell Curve by... someone and someone, two conservative authors, have a lower average IQ, although that hardly indicates that any particular African-American has a low IQ), but it would hardly exclude liberals as a whole. Interestingly enough, the same book had a chart indicating which SD of voters tended to vote for which party. Care to take a guess as to which party had lower intelligence voters? Hint: the authors weren't happy about the results.

The bell curve, by charles murray, quite the active republican. The other guy is dead (kind of forgot his name, shame on me, being a psychology student, oh yeah it was Herrnstein). Anyway the tests DO indeed point out that African-Americans score less than average on IQ scales. But the question really is if it's true. Plenty alternative reasons (theoretically seen) why blacks score less than white. Less good education, selfullfilling prophecies, or perhaps the black slaves who were smart got killed or did not get enslaved at all (yes, that might sound racist perhaps, it's just a theoretical possibility though). And ofcourse the whole IQ test might consist of biased questions. But even if blacks would be/are less smart it's according to subsequent research only a few points (this research could only compensate for the lack of education and socio-economics though). And there has always been conciderable overlap between the bellcurves of both the blacks and the whites... Ofcourse mr Murray doesn't mention that too loud...

In theory, I agree with stopping the dumb people from voting. A great example is that if one candidate in an election promises tax cuts during a recession, while another person promises tax increases to save the economy, the person promising tax cuts will most likely be elected by the huge vortex of ignorant voters. However, I don't think there is any way to make the test fair and unbiased, so in practice it would not work well. The test could not cover every current event, and some people might be more informed about events not on the test, for whatever reason. There would be too much ambiguity for such an important matter.
In terms of IQ tests, it is most likely that African-Americans score worse because of socio-economic reasons, as many people mentioned, not because the tests are biased. It may sound racist, but it is obvious that in the US, a higher percentage of African-Americans receive a poor education than caucasians.

Obviously only some have clearly understood the point. So once again i will step in to clarify questions and comments i heard from some of you guys.

The one thing i heard most often was the African-American low IQ's scores... this test is not gonna tell us how smart the person is. It will simply,very simply, tell us if this person is aware of current events in the country. You do not need to have a high school education to turn on the television and watch the news every so often.

A second issue i heard is that the test would favor one party above another... people we are obviously not gonna put eighter of the running parties in charge of making the test. Just like in real life the Electoral College doesn't favor eighter party.

Another brief issue i want to address is the "genius" who was babbling about turning all nations into and Aristocracy. Again i state the test is not to reveal the IQ of the person, nor their education level. You dont need a Masters from Harvard to know that, for example: The United States of America along with other Coalition Forces have embarked in a "War Against Terror", that Saddam Hussein has been captured and his Regime overthrown by U.S. Armed Forces, That Osama Bin Laden continues to evade U.S. Intelligence, Or that our Economy just got out of a long recession.

What i have read is confused people trying to make this resolution into something it isn't. It does not insult anyone, it shouldn't offend anyone, and again i state it will only be discriminatory against people who have no idea about the current political and economic scene in the country.

Thank You for reading my thoughts.

Voting is a privlidge and a right. I do agree that voters should be educated, but forcing people to take a test is not the correct way to go about it.

If anyone has any ideas on how to better educate voters I would love ot hear it.

No we found them in syria. :P

At least I glanced over that this evening.

Excluding people from voting....though very loved by me knowing what people are voting, looks around the UN in nationstates :P just kidding......is considered very unwise. You see democracy is not about getting the best policy. It is about getting the maximum support. It is to stopfrom people rebelling because they have another way to change things.

That is why it is so important that a democracy gives everybody a chance to fight for what he believes in.

Voting is a privlidge and a right. I do agree that voters should be educated, but forcing people to take a test is not the correct way to go about it.

If anyone has any ideas on how to better educate voters I would love ot hear it.

Uh maybe. More time at school about principals of society. History classes, geography classes.

And free eductation in these subjects for adults. That is a worthy spending for any democracy.

And reinstating, what did the romans call it, rethoric classes. So people are better to manipulate....no. Knowing how to do it, is however the ultimate defense in making sure you are being manipulated. ;). Never con a conman.

The resolution is not looking to create a lower-class of people (so to speak) who will look to rebel. The resolution is to raise awareness of current political situations within countries across the board. Any citizen who treasures their ability to vote and wants to vote in elections will, under this resolution, take the time to make an educated decision. That's all we're asking. There's no reason to rebel because the system wouldn't oppress anybody who wanted to vote enough that they made sure they were aware about what they were voting for.

My problem is that the current government would decide what is on the tests. If one assumes the worst about the government, one would assume that the government has been lying to the people. If one assumes that the opposition is principled and smart, they might know what's really going on. If the voting test requires the voter to affirm some lies, then the opposition is screwed unless the voters betray their principles.

Hence why I think it's a bad idea. For what it's worth, the Logarchy allows elections, but only to competent adults. We administer a battery of tests to determine if a person is ready to take his place in society. Only these are allowed to vote (and work).

My problem is that the current government would decide what is on the tests. If one assumes the worst about the government, one would assume that the government has been lying to the people. If one assumes that the opposition is principled and smart, they might know what's really going on. If the voting test requires the voter to affirm some lies, then the opposition is screwed unless the voters betray their principles.

Hence why I think it's a bad idea. For what it's worth, the Logarchy allows elections, but only to competent adults. We administer a battery of tests to determine if a person is ready to take his place in society. Only these are allowed to vote (and work).

Actually that could be solved by letting the tests be made by an independend branch of the state. Like the judical branch is actually independend in some countries.

My problem is that the current government would decide what is on the tests. If one assumes the worst about the government, one would assume that the government has been lying to the people. If one assumes that the opposition is principled and smart, they might know what's really going on. If the voting test requires the voter to affirm some lies, then the opposition is screwed unless the voters betray their principles.

Hence why I think it's a bad idea. For what it's worth, the Logarchy allows elections, but only to competent adults. We administer a battery of tests to determine if a person is ready to take his place in society. Only these are allowed to vote (and work).

Actually that could be solved by letting the tests be made by an independend branch of the state. Like the judical branch is actually independend in some countries.

That is assuming that the judiciary is apolitical... and quite honestly, having learned from the United States, with the most independent judiciary in the world, how very political justices can be, I still wouldn't feel good about it.

All I need do is look at Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas on the Supreme Court and see how it would be very, very bad.

Instead of a test on "knowledge" of current events (which would really be just a test to see if people agreed with the opinions of the tests author), the only function of which would be to exclude certain political viewpoints, how about a straightforward test of basic intelligence to qualify voters? Of course, that would exclude liberals, but we could live with that.

It would harm African-Americans (who, according to the Bell Curve by... someone and someone, two conservative authors, have a lower average IQ, although that hardly indicates that any particular African-American has a low IQ), but it would hardly exclude liberals as a whole. Interestingly enough, the same book had a chart indicating which SD of voters tended to vote for which party. Care to take a guess as to which party had lower intelligence voters? Hint: the authors weren't happy about the results.
Just because something harms a group doesn't mean it discriminates against them. An IQ test cannot determine the race of a person, and even if more people of a certain race get excluded on those means, the test only excludes them based on the test score, which defines the point of the test in the first place. Furthermore, if one really counts how many people of each group the test has excluded, there inevitable will appear a group that has slightly more people without voting rights. Personally, I do not consider IQ tests very accurate in this matter, because they tend to measure spacial intelligence more than anything else, and one seldom needs that to make informed political choices.

Personally, I do not consider IQ tests very accurate in this matter, because they tend to measure spacial intelligence more than anything else, and one seldom needs that to make informed political choices.[/quote]

It's not an IQ test... its a test about political awareness!!