New to the argument, decided to jump in here. Though, I agree that the main parties in this argument should attempt to focus on the main points. I wanted to address a few though.
Czcibor said:
So your point is that contemporary there is such belief? Yes, I agree there is such a belief nowadays. In the same way as there used to be such belief in past concerning monarchies (actually, Montesquieu considered monarchy as more moral than democracy, it sounds cute nowadays; I wouldn't mention Plato because you already mentioned his philosopher kings, so that would be redundant).
I don't think this is a question of who thinks what.
It is more moral to allow people the opportunity to:
a) voice their concerns and opinions on matters of state, no matter how educated or politically aware they are.
b) have their voices matter in a tangible way, even if it is to a small extent.
Later I expanded mentioning that such test could be by occasion used at end of secondary school, to make people motivated enough to try to pass it. (but it could be taken also on demand)
Are the learning disabled any less reliable to make decisions for the common good.
Let's not debate mentally handicapped persons as I don't want to open up a can of worms, but those who are in standard level classes yet have difficulty learning and can't pass the test?
Education does not imply utilitarianism. Educated people can be just as arrogant, indecent, uncaring, and selfish as anyone; and many sociopaths and psycopaths are quite educated indeed.
Passing a history exam and learning how to do your ten times tables doesn't necessarily qualify you as a better voter than anyone else.
But at election day I have to asses that politician. If I don't understand foreign policy I might consider quite talented diplomat as unpatriotic coward, and vote against him.
And what makes you think that this test would assure that these people will do their due dilligence? What makes you think that after passing, these people won't just fall back into their political allegiences?
Have you seen pools, in which Americans have to describe how according to them the federal budget look like? You would be impressed how much they believe that their gov gives in foreign aid. ;)
Yea, it's pretty off, and that stems from a lack of understanding of budget allocations. People hear dollar amounts and don't realize that these amount to peanuts in the grand scheme of things.
But how many of those people surveyed fall into your 20%?
I'm willing to bet that not
all, or even most, of those people are living in moonshine shacks in West Virginia.
I do not advocate education credentials, but exactly to avoid that - a standardized test. Which inequalities I should account for?
But this is exactly what the biggest issue is. A standardized test means that those who go to wealthier schools with better teachers, better books, better resources, etc. will be much more likely to be accepted into this oligarchical meritocracy than people of lower income. Which, as LisaB pointed out, will allow (not necessitate) the corrupt to further widen the gap between the wealthy and poor through funding cuts and education reforms, etc. and the poor would slowly lose their voice to do anything about it.
With all that said, I would not object to having to pass some sort of test regarding basic foreign politics and geography, economics (basic understanding), our current US (I'm a US citizen, insert any country there) political and budgetary approach, and such to get voting rights.
