Hacker News Reader

Comment by m463 | Hacker News Reader

I think a lot of US immigrants are more well versed in the workings of the US government than native born citizens.

This is because they have a source of comparison, and it is on the test! (if they go for citizenship)

Although some US citizens get how well some things work in the US compared to other countries, they have blind spots for some things that don't.

I got sick in Mexico once and went to a doctor there. I paid in cash and it was something like $2. If I wanted, I could get my medicine in pill or hypodermic form.

View on HN

I know there's some controversial history adjacent to this idea, but I think everyone (native born included) should pass the test before they can vote. I also think we should throw out the voting age and the felony condition and ONLY have a voting test.

Who gets to decide what’s on the test? Also, what languages would it be available in? Seems hopelessly fraught (and likely illegal).

https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/voting-rights-and-t...

I have a long answer to this which I can dredge up and copy paste. Here's the short version.

1/3 random questions from the immigration test as it exists today (so that no one can disenfranchise others by changing the test).

2/3 questions chosen by each candidate on the ballot. Questions must have an objectively correct answer and must be pertinent to the powers of the office itself.

The long version of this answer just adds defining objective, correct, and pertinent in a legally unambiguous way and sketches out scenarios like trick questions to show that the only reliable way to gain favor in this system is to actually be knowledgeable.

Oh gosh. Why do candidates have any business filtering voters?

Why do people who don't even know what the candidates said have any business voting?

There is already plenty enough built-in momentum to not properly educate the public - "if we fuck up they don't get to vote" is some next level shit.

Just curve the test so that 80% pass.

At face value, that means 20% of the people (in a "democracy") will be unable to vote.

Basically you are saying that some people will not have the ability to decide who will govern them.

I just think it would be gamed somehow, like the games played with gerrymandering.

Are you ok with children not voting? That right there is ~20% of the population.

I assume that it works more like a filter - does the voter know the promises and policies of each candidate in his region? Or is the voter voting blindly?

There was an idea going around that instead of voting for candidate, you would answer a questionnaire about policies, and would be matched with best fit candidate.

The questions itself would be compiled from candidates' policies, and candidate would assign the weights to each of the answers.

That will play into the hands of certain parties, as it will serve to eliminate certain demographics.

And not having a test plays in the hands of others that have a large pool of people who don't understand the system and what they're voting for.

The problem is that this system will gradually mean that people who get to vote entrench their privilege and keep out others who do not get to vote. Gradually, you'll have a permanent underclass of people who have never known voting. The effects of unequal schooling etc will be even worse than they are today and politicians will have no incentive to even consider people who can't vote.

I really should dredge out my old comment because I already address this concern. Curve the test so that 80% pass. In this way it is impossible to get a feedback loop that miniaturizes the electorate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com