A Test to Vote? Could That Save Us From Narcissistic Maniacs?
Maybe we should give it a try.
♦️ This is part 2 of the series: Grown-Up Democracy — on voters, politicians, and who should be allowed to run the world. Read part 1 here: The Problem Isn’t Trump or Orban. It’s Everyone Who Made Them Possible. Read part 3 here: What Should Be Required to Become a Politician? Read part 4 here: The Narcissist Is Never Alone.
A democracy can work fairly well with ignorant voters until the right idiot comes along. And the higher the number of ignorant voters, the more likely that an idiot will become our leader. As happened in America. But Trump is merely one example.
This has happened in so many democracies; it’s about time we accept that ignorant voters are dangerous. The question is what we do about it.
We, as voters, make decisions about our country’s future, our own future, our children’s future —without needing any skills or knowledge whatsoever.
So, what if we introduced a test-based licence to vote? It would not constitute a panacea, but it could prevent the worst of the narcissistic maniacs from ending up in a position of power.
In this article, we will have a closer look at voter testing. What it might look like, and how we could get there.
Several scholars have suggested a test for voters. They agree that a basic understanding of the political system and the principles of democracy must be included in such a test. “Who is responsible for what? – “How do the different institutions relate to each other?” – “What kind of elections do we have?”
However, for the test I have in mind, such questions would only be the 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. It would be 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 variation 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.
And to enhance interest, make the questions relatable to people’s everyday lives.
Make the test relatable and worthwhile
Show people that good thinking is not just about voting; it’s about every decision you make.
· 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?”
· 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?”· 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.”) “Why do they want this job? What is their plan for solving any of the problems the country faces? What have they done in the past? Strengths and weaknesses? Have they learned from mistakes?”
But coming up with ideas for what a voter test could look like is one thing. That is fun. Now comes the hard work. How can such a test be implemented?
Let’s look at some of the hurdles we will encounter.
What about the costs for all this testing?
If there is one objection we will face pretty quickly, then it is “What about the costs?”
This would be one of the easiest objections to refute, because we have a heavy counterargument ready at hand:
What about the costs for ignorant voters? What has and will Trump cost America and the world? What will his wars, tariffs and tax cuts for the already supersonic rich cost? Orban made Hungary the poorest country in the European Union. Erdogan ignited a long-standing economic crisis in Turkey. Brexit has cost the Brits deeply.
Setting up and running voter tests may be a small cost compared to risking a Trump or an Orban 2.0.
Who should put these tests together?
Who should decide on the 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.
And voter tests cannot be rolled out on a grand scale just like that. They should be tried on smaller groups, then at a number of local elections, until it is wise to launch them at the national level.
Testing and trying are the key issues here—and also the solutions.
We need more experimentation
A sad thing about politics is the lack of experimentation. Politicians are so afraid of making mistakes and risking not being re-elected, they dedicate almost zero time to trying out 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. To be brave enough to encounter a bunch of backlashes before we get it right.
By starting small, trying out several options and learning from mistakes, we could exercise some bold experimentation in voter tests. Even without politicians risking any form of crucifixion.
Now, let’s say we have overcome a stretch of thorny hurdles and deep potholes on our way to launching a test for voters. Still, 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 — and I don’t think anyone can 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 ignorant, lazy and easy-to-fool 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.”
------------------------------
But what about the politicians themselves you may ask? 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?
This writer also uses driving licence to compare, but conclude that education in school can replace a test to vote. I don’t agree:
Christopher Cowley, Centre for Ethics in Public Life, University College Dublin
Civic education
Civic education sparks connection in the classroom and beyond
Critical thinking in schools
Critical thinking in education
Inoculate Against Misinformation
Critical thinking games
How to use Cranky Uncle:
Cognitive Biases and Heuristics
Guide to the Most Common Cognitive Biases and Heuristics
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.”
Op-Ed: Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?
Roosevelt - “Looking Forward”
Looking Forward by Franklin D. Roosevelt
Mandatory voting
22 countries where voting is mandatory
Hungary
Eurostat: Actual individual consumption per capita in 2023