Should there be a test to vote?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Should there be a test to vote?
Position1 of 2›: Yes, there should be tests for voting
Argument1 of 3›: 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

The case for a voting test made here is that elections are currently decided in large part by self-interest rather than by judgment about who should govern, and that a test would filter for the second. The argument starts from a definition. A bias is a tendency, inclination or prejudice for or against something or someone. Applied to voting, the relevant bias is the one that leads people to support the party that benefits themselves rather than the right person to govern the country. The distinction matters because the two questions can have different answers: a policy that transfers money to a particular group is good for that group whether or not it is good for the country, and a voter weighing only the first question will never notice the second. An example is supplied from Franklin D. Roosevelt's campaign for the presidency. When Roosevelt ran, he promised to restore America from the Great Depression, and among the groups that stood to benefit from his presidency were farmers. Through the Agricultural Adjustment Act, farmers were paid not to produce certain crops, which caused consumers to pay extra for the approved products. The distributive pattern is the point: Roosevelt gave farmers more money, while consumers would be losing more money. A farmer voting on the basis of the benefit to farmers would support the policy, and would be behaving rationally in narrow terms while producing a worse outcome overall. What such a voter lacks is not honesty but information about consequences beyond their own position — exactly what a test could establish. On this view a leader with more political experience is a better choice than one with a great deal of popularity, and a test would help elections reward the first rather than the second. Because a test for voting would decrease biased votes in this way, the argument concludes, there should be a test to vote.

Premises

[P1]People often vote out of self-interest, for the party that benefits them rather than the best leader for the country. [P2] FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Act, for example, paid farmers at consumers' expense, winning votes while costing the wider public. [P3] A voting test would screen for informed judgement over such self-interested bias. [C] Therefore, because a test for voting reduces political bias, there should be a test to vote.

Counter-arguments

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

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.