On Voting Tests

An individual was expounded on the idea that there should be some test before being allowed to vote. Perhaps something as simple as the ability to read should be required, so that people who are making the decisions about who would lead us at least have indicated some base intelligence, and wouldn't be too likely to support a candidate just because the candidate was a proficient speaker.

As with many heinous ideas, it sounds plausible on the surface. We don't want the truly ignorant making decisions that effect all of us, do we?

But, the idea of imposing a test deeply bothers me, on at least three counts.

First, it is antithetical to the idea of democracy. True, in America, we are a representational democracy, and many hide behind this fact as cover for advancing elitist and exclusive ideas – ideas aimed more at keeping in power those with whom they agree rather than allowing for a pluralism of thought (and action.) It reveals the inability of those who expound such ideas to grasp that their experience and their decisions are not universally right or universally accepted: That other citizens, with other experiences, can, and do, reach rational but different conclusions.

Second, there is the difficulty in determining which test to impose. It is hardly a trivial problem to attempt to solve. Want people who are not likely to be hoodwinked? How, exactly, do you test for that? Early constraints, like requiring land ownership (and maleness) surely did nothing to indicate a lack of gullibility. Individual experience and specific situations certainly play a much larger role in avoiding gullibility, plus any test would be lengthy and still likely prone to error. (Just witness the inability for SAT scores to predict success in college to gain an understanding.)

Finally, and I think most importantly, the idea of excluding individuals from participating in society violates and undermines one of our most important goals: Building an equitable and just society. For far too much of human history, ruling classes have taken advantage of, and treated differently those ruled. Of course, when the tables turned, and the former slaves became the masters, they continued their master's ways, and the cycle continues.

However, the structure of a fully inclusive democratic society is different. It attempts to break with this cycle, and build durable, just institutions that can withstand changes in society's composition, changes in the ruling class, and absorb and advance changes in the understanding of justice. We don't want to build a society that just protects us when we are the ruling class: We want a society that will continue to protect us fairly if/when we become a minority. We want to embody John Rawl's ideas of Justice as Fairness (as set forth in his book 'A Theory of Justice'). We want to place ourselves behind a veil, and build a society and institutions whose very structure would be fair, and we would not protest no matter which position in society we find ourselves (majority, minority, ruling class, middle class, etc.)

Imposing a test would violate this principle. What if someday, we or our descendants no longer get to determine the test, and it is redesigned to exclude us or them? What a horrible legacy to leave. Far better to support full inclusion today, to support and strengthen a society built on justice for all citizens.
For only in doing so do we have a chance to break with human tradition, and forge a new path towards a fairer, and ultimately freer, tradition.