- Question
- Should there be a test to vote?
- Position‹2 of 2
- No, there shouldn't be a test to vote
- Argument‹3 of 3
Tests aren’t always accurate so there should not be a test to vote
Tests are used to test people’s knowledge and skill. But they are also under scrutiny. People wonder if it’s fair to use standardized testing because it’s a fixed system. If there were tests for voting, how accurate would they be?
The argument
This argument attacks the instrument rather than the aim. Even granting that an informed electorate would be desirable, it holds that a test is not a reliable way of identifying who is informed, because tests are not always accurate. Standardized tests are offered as the clearest example of the problem. Such a test measures everyone against the group: it takes the performance of all candidates as a whole and derives an average, then grades each individual by their distance from it. The consequence is that a score reports a position in a distribution rather than a capability in itself. A student who is not quite up to par with the average receives a lower grade, even though in reality they may need to improve only a little. The grade therefore exaggerates a small shortfall into an apparent failure, and the exaggeration is a feature of how the test is constructed rather than an error in its administration. The objection is what follows when that instrument is given power over a right. In education a misleading score costs a student a grade, which can be retaken or offset. In an election it would cost them the vote, and the cost would fall precisely on the people whose shortfall was marginal — those who understood a good deal but happened to fall below the average on the day. It would be unfair for someone to be denied the franchise because their score sat slightly on the wrong side of a line that was drawn relative to everyone else's performance rather than to any threshold of competence. Because a voting test would inaccurately and unfairly exclude citizens who are in fact competent, there should not be a test to vote.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Although tests aren't always accurate, they could still be effective. The goal of a voting test is to make people realize how important voting is. For example, a computer's firewall can be broken into. But it would take much more effort to break into a strong firewall than a weak firewall. It’s better to have a test than no test at all.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P2] Although anyone could pass the test, it could limit the amount of non-competent voters.