Quite apart from this idea being utterly grotesque and against every principle of a democratic society, it wouldn't work anyway. Either you'd have to set the bar very low so as to avoid mass social unrest, which wouldn't change anything, or you'd set it relatively high and disenfranchise millions of people who would then start protesting about the arbitrary line that had been drawn to exlude them from the franchise and would almost certainly bring down the government.

But honestly, why do you think this would improve the functioning of the polity ? Clever people do stupid things all the time and one man's informed and worthy citizen is another man's bloody idiot who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the voting booth. As a free citizen in a democratic society you don't have to earn the right to vote, you have it inherently by virtue of your citizenship. This is as it should be because even ignorant people are subject to the same laws, areaffected by the same government policies and pay the same taxes as the clever people. What Ricky is proposing here is taxation without representation. I believe there may have been a revolution about that issue somewhere....

What is your plan? Do you have one, or just popping off?

I have no plan. I am just popping off... in order to think through my visceral response to a couple of news pieces read recently.

danivon

If you explicitly disenfranchise a lot of people, even 'stupid' people, then politics will be more inclined to ignore them. If that group is large, and if the end up being marginalised, do not expect them to sit idly by and let you 'clever' people get on with it - they could be motivated in hard times to cause a lot of trouble.

True.

sass

But honestly, why do you think this would improve the functioning of the polity ? Clever people do stupid things all the time

Setting aside the voting requirements, which I think you and Danivon have demonstrated would not work ...
If the people serving in Congress or other elected office had better educations, and more knowledge they've got to do a better job. (In the US congress most are lawyers by the way)
Because, although its true that clever people do stupid things all the time, stupid people do stupid things more often...
Don't you think that if someone aspires to elected office, they should have proven that they understand how the office works ? The misunderstanding over the "debt limits" demonstrated by many in Congress is a perfect example ... When uncertainty is thrown into the economy through law makers basic misunderstandings about the creation and use of debt instruments .... then the quality of the elected official becomes a fundamental concern.

I don't really see what kind of a test you're supposed to be able to create that would make a blind bit of difference. Some kind of basic civics exam would be worthless, it would just be an insignificant hurdle to cross. Do you seriously think that many members of Congress wouldn't be able to pass it easily, or for that matter that it would seriously lead to better decisions being made ?

In a democracy the test that you have to pass comes at the ballot box. The people have every right to elect an idiot as their representative if they want to, and they frequently do just that. Of course this is a problem but it's preferable to any of the alternatives which seek to restrict the rights of free citizens to choose.

Sassenach wrote:I don't really see what kind of a test you're supposed to be able to create that would make a blind bit of difference. Some kind of basic civics exam would be worthless, it would just be an insignificant hurdle to cross. Do you seriously think that many members of Congress wouldn't be able to pass it easily, or for that matter that it would seriously lead to better decisions being made ?

In a democracy the test that you have to pass comes at the ballot box. The people have every right to elect an idiot as their representative if they want to, and they frequently do just that. Of course this is a problem but it's preferable to any of the alternatives which seek to restrict the rights of free citizens to choose.

Sass, I agree. We need to ensure the people voting are actual citizens, but leave them all to their respective idiocies.

sass

Do you seriously think that many members of Congress wouldn't be able to pass it easily, or for that matter that it would seriously lead to better decisions being made ?

Entrance exams work to filter out the probably incompetent in most professions.... Why would it be different in governance? (The problem would be the content of the exam I suppose...)

I think a large number of congress men and women would have a problem. Now maybe thats skewed from watching too many interviews with shining examples on Colbert or the Daily Show ...

Please consider that in England, when an idot gets elected he becomes a permanent back bencher and party discipline keeps him from doing too much damage.
In the US, they get appointed to the Science and Technology committees ...

I understand the impossibility of "entrance exam" I'm talking about ....