Should there be a test to vote?

Tests aren’t always accurate so there should not be a test to vote

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

Tests aren’t always accurate. Standardized tests are a good example of this. Standardized tests measure everyone’s intelligence as a whole and makes an average. This means that if a student isn’t up to par with the average, they get a lower grade on the test but in reality, they only need to improve a little. It would be unfair if someone failed a voting test because their score was below average.

Premises

[P1]Tests are not always accurate: standardized tests measure everyone against an average, so a student only marginally below par receives a failing score that misrepresents their true ability. [P2] Applying that same flawed instrument to voting would unfairly disenfranchise capable people whose scores happened to fall below average. [C] Because a voting test would inaccurately and unfairly exclude competent citizens, there should not be a test to vote.

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.