Should there be a test to vote?

A voting test ensures people know how politics works

Question: Should there be a test to vote?
Position1 of 2›: Yes, there should be tests for voting
Argument‹2 of 3›: A voting test ensures people know how politics works

It’s very important to understand how the government works. The government has been rooted in laws and traditions that have been in place for centuries. If someone knew how the government operated, they could appoint people who would best run the country.

The argument

Proponents of a voting test start from an observation about the machinery of government rather than about voters themselves: government systems are intricate, and they are often difficult to understand even for people who follow them closely. Lawmaking is the obvious example. A bill is not simply proposed and adopted; it is debated, agreed upon and voted on many times over, and if agreement fails it goes back to be revised before it can reach the president. The process is long and strenuous by design, and none of it is self-explanatory to someone who has never had it set out. The second step is that this opacity has consequences at the ballot box. Much of the complaint directed at politics, on this view, is not disagreement with outcomes but frustration at a process the complainant cannot follow: a promised measure stalls, and the delay looks like betrayal or incompetence rather than the ordinary friction of a system that requires repeated agreement. A voter who misreads delay in this way will judge candidates by that misreading, rewarding those who promise what the system cannot quickly deliver and penalising those who work patiently within it. The remedy follows directly. If voters understood concepts like this, they would assess candidates against what an office can actually achieve and how long it takes, and would vote for more qualified candidates as a result. A test taken before voting is simply a way of ensuring that understanding is present rather than assumed, in the same way that competence is confirmed before other consequential responsibilities are handed over. On this account the test is not a barrier aimed at anyone in particular but a guarantee that a vote is an informed judgement about the machinery the voter is helping to staff, and that is why there should be tests for voting.

Premises

[P1]Government systems are intricate and difficult to understand, like the long process by which a bill becomes law. [P2] Many voters complain about politics precisely because they do not understand how these systems work. [P3] If voters understood such concepts, they would choose more qualified candidates. [C] Therefore, because a voting test ensures people know how politics works, there should be tests for voting.

Counter-arguments

Tests are an unreliable way of making someone learn. Tests want testers to remember random facts for just a short amount of time. This means no one will remember all the information they learn once the test is over. Plus, tests aren't that important. For example, the SAT and ACT aren't as important as they seem. Colleges and universities do have SAT and ACT scores to see which students are qualified, but that's not all administration looks at. High school GPA, behavior, writing skills, and connections matter more than ACT and SAT scores. Although it’s important to know how the government works, it shouldn’t keep people from voting.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Ignorance shouldn’t be the determining factor of who gets the right to vote. It’s a civilian right.