A democracy can work pretty well with stupid voters until the right idiot comes along. And the higher the number of stupid voters, the more likely that such an idiot will become our leader. As what happened in America.
In most countries, you have to pass a test to get a driving licence. And those licences were introduced to curb the number of traffic accidents.
Set that against voting, where we make decisions about our country’s future, our own future, our children’s future without needing any skills or knowledge whatsoever. One voter can, of course, not cause the immediate damage one driver can. On the other hand, our total vote impacts everyone and almost everything in our lives.
So, what if we introduced a test-based licence to vote? It would not constitute a panacea, but imagine the number of traffic deaths without the driving licence requirement. Similarly, a test to vote could prevent the worst of the narcissistic maniacs from ending up in a position of power. A number of scholars have come up with the same idea, among others, the economist Dambisa Moyo.
However, the test I have in mind would be different.
A basic understanding of the political system and the principles of democracy must be included in a voter test. “Who is responsible for what? How do the different institutions relate to each other?” But such questions will be just a starter.
A test of how to think, not what to know
The larger part of the voter test should focus on critical thinking and how to make better decisions. I want a test of how to think, not what to know.
Here are some ideas for what to include:
Simulations: Testees could be asked to simulate as decision-makers at a local council. “You only have money for a new school or upgrading the local sewer plant. What would you choose? How would you defend your choice?”
Role-play: Put him or her in the role of a manipulator spreading misinformation. What does it take to manipulate people? What to do to avoid being manipulated? Or create some variance of the Cranky Uncle or the Bad News game.
Awareness of confirmation bias and overconfidence: Give people statements to agree with and give them gradually more disagreeable, nuanced and complex alternatives to choose from.
Make the test relatable and worthwhile
Show people that good thinking is not just about voting, it is about every decision you make. And why not bring some humour into the test? Being a responsible citizen involves having a good laugh.
Also, make the test relatable to people’s everyday life:
Point out the similarities between running a local council and jiggling household finances.
”Fixing the potholes or meals on wheels? Fixing the porch or meat on weekdays?”Compare voting to interviewing somebody for a job.
“What would you need to know about this candidate to offer him or her a job?” (Hint: something more than “Only I can fix it.”)Show the testee that the qualities you look for in a political leader may be much the same as the ones you look for in a partner or a friend.
”Reliable? Caring? Can handle criticism?”
But coming up with a list of suggested questions is one thing. Much more tricky is who should decide what to put in.
Who should put these tests together?
Who should decide on the test questions? That seems to be the biggest argument against tests to vote. “The other political party will never accept questions on XYZ.”
But politicians with vested interests must be kept at arm’s length while these tests are being established. Any fishy objections like “We shouldn’t dig too deep into that manipulation stuff, it upsets voters” will then fall on deaf ears.
Our lawmakers will have the final say, but not until the questions and the procedures have been tested so thoroughly that the stream of but-but-but will have dried out.
Voter tests cannot be rolled out on a grand scale just like that. They should be tried and tested among smaller groups, then at a number of local elections, until it is wise to launch them at the national level.
And testing and trying are the key issues here.
We need more experimentation
A sad thing about politics is the lack of testing. Politicians are so afraid of making mistakes and risking not being re-elected they dedicate almost zero time to test and try anything. Instead, they employ endless energy defending every little move they make. Or on attacking the other side for their mistakes.
What if politics were more like science? We start with a hypothesis and test it out. If it doesn’t work, we amend it or discard it and come up with something else.
And that is what Franklin D. Roosevelt meant by “bold and persistent experimentation.”
You do not see much of that attitude in today’s politics. But we will never fix anything if we are not willing to find out what works. Brave enough to encounter a bunch of backlashes before we get it right.
By starting small, testing several options, learning from mistakes, we could exercise some bold experimentation in voter tests. Even without politicians risking any form of crucifixion.
Having rambled through all these considerations about what, why and how, one big issue remains.
Mandatory or not mandatory?
Is it wise to make a test to vote mandatory?
If it is voluntary and only those who pass the test are legitimate to vote, won’t that lead to democracy for the few? Where only the most resourceful are willing to do the test?
We could introduce weighted voting, where everyone could vote, but where the votes of those passing a test counted more. But wouldn’t that lead to the same result? A society dominated by an elite?
My answer: I don’t know. Why don’t we test and try?
If it turns out that only the educated and already engaged are willing to do the test, then perhaps we should make it mandatory? And since mandatory testing without mandatory voting makes little sense, perhaps we should introduce mandatory voting, too? 22 countries already have.
We need to stop wasting time arguing whether something will work if we have not tried it out.
The world is led by manchildren due to stupid voters. These manchildren enrich themselves, keep people in poverty and dismantle democracies. They are also good at speeding up the extinction of everything living. It is time to stop squabbling and take action to improve the quality of voting. Or to quote Roosevelt” Above all, try something.”
What about the costs?
What about the costs for all this testing?
My counterargument: What about the costs for unskilled voters? What has and will the Orange toddler cost America and the world? What will his tariffs and promised tax cuts for the already supersonic rich cost? Orban has made Hungary the poorest country in the European Union. Erdogan ignited a long-standing economic crisis in Turkey. Brexit has cost the Brits deeply.
What about politicians?
This was my third article on what to do about ignorant, lazy, short-sighted and easy to fool voters. Or what I call stupid voters.
So what about that other leg a democracy stands on, the politicians themselves? As I mentioned in the beginning, a democracy can work even with stupid voters until the right idiot comes along. Such an idiot now sits in the White House.
We cannot have it like that. People around the world cannot be dependent on whether millions of Americans vote for a narcissistic maniac or a sane person. And America is not alone. Voters around the world put manchildren in power—again and again.
However, even the best voters imaginable cannot achieve much without good candidates to vote for.
A huge problem is that anyone can become a politician with no proof of his or her skills, knowledge or character. If voters are obliged to pass a test, so should politicians. But a much tougher one, of course.
Many politicians do an excellent job, dedicating their time to create better lives for all of us. Unfortunately, the good ones have to compete with a large number of idiots. And by idiots, I mean immature, self-serving people with infantile needs who often cannot manage their own lives. They are not fit to be in charge of anyone or anything.
------------------------------
More on what should be required to become a politician in my next piece.
Thanks for reading! Please, subscribe.
Want to find out more?
My main sources for this article:
Voting test
Dambisa Moyo: Across the world, democracy is in crisis. Here’s my plan to save it
Can we help save democracy by requiring voters to pass a test of political knowledge?
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/05/10/can-we-help-save-democracy-by-requiring/
This writer also uses driving licence to compare, but conclude that education in school can replace a test to vote. I don’t agree.
Civic education and critical thinking in schools
https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/en/discover/news/civic-education-sparks-connection
https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/en/discover/news/critical-thinking-education
Critical thinking games
Crancky Uncle:
Bad News:
How to use Cranky Uncle:
Critical thinking
Confirmation bias and overconfidence effect:
Inoculate against misinformation:
https://thinkingispower.com/inoculate-against-misinformation/
Weighted voting - epistocracy
“Epistocracy is a system in which the votes of people who can prove their political knowledge count more than the votes of people who can’t. In other words, it’s a system that privileges the most politically informed citizens.”
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-brennan-epistocracy-20160828-snap-story.html
Roosevelt - “Looking Forward”
Hungary
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20240619-2
Mandatory voting
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/22-countries-voting-mandatory