argument top image

Should there be a test to vote?
Back to question

A test for voting reduces political bias

Everyone has biased opinions. If people were unbiased when they voted, there could be better political leaders.

The Argument

There should be a test to vote because it’ll help decrease biased votes. A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone.[1] Instead of voting for the right person to govern the country, people often go based on the party that benefits themselves. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was running for president, he promised to restore America from the Great Depression. One of the groups of people that would benefit from his presidency were farmers. Through the Agricultural Adjustment Act, farmers were paid to not produce certain crops causing people to pay extra for the approved products.[2] Although Roosevelt gave farmers more money, consumers would be losing more money. A leader with more political experience with politics is better than one with a lot of popularity.

Counter arguments

Not everyone who passes the test will be unbiased. Everyone has a bias and opinions.[3] This will make the test unnecessary.



[P1] People are biased when voting. [P2] Tests are necessary to keep biased voters from voting.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Tests won’t determine who’s biased or not. This means anyone who passes the test could be very biased.


This page was last edited on Friday, 13 Mar 2020 at 08:21 UTC

Explore related arguments