Would a more meritocratic system be more beneficial than contemporary republics?

[Ryan_m_b]

I admit, you have very original interpretation. The more usual is warning about communism, that starts from nice egalitarian ideas. Taking into account Orwell engagement in Spanish civil war and his experience with being attacked by units backed by the SU, I'm afraid that the second interpretation is closer to his goal.

How are they mutually exclusive?

Why should morality be measured by your standards? And not by mine? Or not by some standards of some other third party? (including third parties that are not necessary alive today)

Perhaps we're having a language problem here. I'm not advocating that my morality should be the one used by all, I made a judgement on the basis of my moral system and you said why that system? Because I'm making the judgement.

So your point is that in idealized democracy, which exist as kind of immortal Platonic idea we don't have this issue? So the problem and lack of morality exists only in real life democracies? Well, we might actually be approaching a common ground here.

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying you are bringing in discussions of different democracies into a general discussion of democracy and other systems without acknowledging that.

You neither have a good test for quite many features including who should get citizenship. I think for example of US using "wet feet, dry feet policy". Also we might wonder why the threshold should be 18 years. (Not mentioning that in a few years ago in Poland Civic Platform suggested lowering the threshold to 16, while in Germany FDP suggested granting the law also to children regardless of their age, however the law would be exercised by their parents) That's purely arbitrary distinction, just you are used to one of possible combination and treat it as granted.

How to decide citizenship and age restrictions are different issues than who should be allowed t vote. They're related but different so you can't make a comparison like you are doing. Regardless responding to the point "how would a meritocratic system choose who votes" with "other things in life are arbitrary" doesn't address the point.

Concerning winning election - actually religious people tend to have more children which also might have impact on election. in Israel Chasids by higher fertility rate are increasing their share in next election, what presumably in long run would be more harmful for Israel than a few Palestinians launching rockets.

So what? I fail to see your point here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we use US politics as example and people with higher education as kind of approximation you would actually as result get a landslide election for Obama, and congress with Democrats majority which wouldn't be gridlocked. Doesn't look perfect, but I have to admit, that much better what you have now.

Please provide a reference for this claim. Also this doesn't address the points I've made.

I think that you make one mistake here, you use word: "deserve". The point is not who deserve. The point is who will make the decision that would be most beneficial for common good.

So now you're arguing that there is a suitable test for determining who is better at making decisions for the "common good"?

Hypothetically a some random process can be used, as was in ancient Athens. Does the randomly selected people deserve more than those who have lost? No, but anyway could be used if that makes the system more effective. (ancient Athenians were afraid of political parties, thus selecting people by lots from citizens, they hoped to avoid that problem)

You haven't addressed my criticisms that I finished my last post with.

 

[jim hardy]

Wow glad you guys mentioned Animal Farm.
I just the other day found my copy - a 1946 printing .
My friends all read it and we are all amazed how relevant it is today in USA.

Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" is interesting read. As i recall he had only contempt for the communists because of their fickleness - they'd align with whoever served their need at the moment. He really disliked the fascists Hitler was backing.
Chapter eight describes his disilusionment with the return of class division to his socialist movement.
I think that's what planted the seeds of Animal Farm, and i think that book is about human nature more than communism. Clearly Napoleon is Stalin and Squealer is Pravda , and the message is 'dont think it can't happen here'.

just my thouhgts.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Clearly Napoleon is Stalin and Squealer is Pravda

Don't forget Snowball as Trotsky

 

[Czcibor]

How are they mutually exclusive?

He wrote about communism and you work hard to misinterpret it to fit your point.

Perhaps we're having a language problem here. I'm not advocating that my morality should be the one used by all, I made a judgement on the basis of my moral system and you said why that system? Because I'm making the judgement.

OK, but if that's your private belief why use it as argument that is supposed to convince me?

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying you are bringing in discussions of different democracies into a general discussion of democracy and other systems without acknowledging that.

I brought the subject how democratic process really looks like.

How to decide citizenship and age restrictions are different issues than who should be allowed t vote. They're related but different so you can't make a comparison like you are doing. Regardless responding to the point "how would a meritocratic system choose who votes" with "other things in life are arbitrary" doesn't address the point.

But only citizens of certain age are allowed to vote. That's exactly the problem - who is allowed to vote.

That's merely mentioning "how republic chooses who votes".

So what? I fail to see your point here.

You are outraged that good religious schools (all those evil Jesuits ;) ) theoretically could be able to influence election in such meritocracy, while the fact that varied reproduction rate between religion anyway does influence outcome of election in republic in favour of more fertile religion does not bother you, so I can not consider your argument too seriously.

Please provide a reference for this claim. Also this doesn't address the points I've made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...ates#General_attainment_of_degrees.2Fdiplomas
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls
I used M.A and above as approximation of what the top 20% would vote, which covers only 11% of US population.

So now you're arguing that there is a suitable test for determining who is better at making decisions for the "common good"?

Yes, I've been saying that for a while, it's nice that you finally understood that.

Well, I assume that if a person has problem with basic math, then he wouldn't the best person to discuss subject of budget. When a person has problems to find a country on a map, then such person would not be the best at shaping foreign policy.

Or maybe the two above sentences are wrong? And person who don't distinguishing Iran from Iraq can make comparably good decision concerning which to invade?

Yes, that's basic reading, math and test on basic knowledge (at best with some history and economics). I'm not arguing that this is perfect, merely that on average people with knowledge should make more reasonable decision than those without knowledge.

You haven't addressed my criticisms that I finished my last post with.

You mean the fact that that education is not equally distributed in US between races? To be honest I consider that as partially shortfall of US democracy and partially as outcome of inertia. (In the same way as in India Sikhs are still overrepresented in military because so was during British colonial rule)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

He wrote about communism and you work hard to misinterpret it to fit your point.

I'm not misinterpreting it but borrowing its message because it does apply: take away the voting rights of the people and you can sleep walk into an authoritarian nightmare.

OK, but if that's your private belief why use it as argument that is supposed to convince me?

Because I think many people would agree with me that democracies are more moral because it is moral to give people the right to have a say in how their country is run.

I brought the subject how democratic process really looks like.

There is no one democratic process.

So what? I fail to see your point here.

It's quite simple: the fact we have reasons to restrict citizenship and define adulthood are tangential to who deserves the vote. Furthermore you fail to give a good proposal for how to determine who gets to vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...ates#General_attainment_of_degrees.2Fdiplomas
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls
I used M.A and above as approximation of what the top 20% would vote, which covers only 11% of US population.

So you are arguing that having a degree means you are in the top 20% of intelligence? I definitely don't agree with that.

Yes, I've been saying that for a while, it's nice that you finally understood that

Where exactly have you outlined such a system?

Well, I assume that if a person has problem with basic math, then he wouldn't the best person to discuss subject of budget. When a person has problems to find a country on a map, then such person would not be the best at shaping foreign policy.

Or maybe the two above sentences are wrong? And person who don't distinguishing Iran from Iraq can make comparably good decision concerning which to invade?

Yes, that's basic reading, math and test on basic knowledge (at best with some history and economics). I'm not arguing that this is perfect, merely that on average people with knowledge should make more reasonable decision than those without knowledge.

All I'm seeing here is an argument for why people who work in government should be chosen on meritocratic principles. It's all very well and simplistic to say "if you can't count you shouldn't be finance minister" but what criteria would you have for deciding who gets to vote for a party/candidate on financial grounds? Especially as matters like this are not entirely objective. Take for instance the difference in ideology between US libertarians and liberals. It's not always a case of right or wrong.

You mean the fact that that education is not equally distributed in US between races? To be honest I consider that as partially shortfall of US democracy and partially as outcome of inertia. (In the same way as in India Sikhs are still overrepresented in military because so was during British colonial rule)

I'm not American so not focusing on the US but speaking generally about the west (though it applies to most nations: education is not evenly distributed). Regardless you again fail to address my point but dance around it: if you advocate that education credentials can show who the top 20% are how will you account for founding inequalities if a meritocratic society was formed from a contemporary western democracy now?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I can see this going round in circles for a while so why don't we just get stuck into the biggest issue?

1) What criteria do you propose could be used to select this 20%?

2) What arguments do you have to support the notion that the 20% would make things better for the majority of people by the definitions of the majority?

 

[Czcibor]

Because I think many people would agree with me that democracies are more moral because it is moral to give people the right to have a say in how their country is run.

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).

So you are arguing that having a degree means you are in the top 20% of intelligence? I definitely don't agree with that.

Well, I don't mind if you don't agree with a statement which I'm not arguing.
You merely asked for any approximate data concerning how potential outlook of such election could look like. So I took the only available data. No such test is applied nowadays.

Where exactly have you outlined such a system?

Starting post:

As the way of measuring that merit should be applied standardized tests, including math, logical thinking, understanding written texts and basic knowledge.

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)

All I'm seeing here is an argument for why people who work in government should be chosen on meritocratic principles. It's all very well and simplistic to say "if you can't count you shouldn't be finance minister" but what criteria would you have for deciding who gets to vote for a party/candidate on financial grounds? Especially as matters like this are not entirely objective. Take for instance the difference in ideology between US libertarians and liberals. It's not always a case of right or wrong.

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.
I should mention how unpopular was politician (Leszek Balcerowicz) in my country who was responsible for introducing free market reforms and combating hyperinflation - majority of my compatriots expected that such things could have been done painlessly, so he effectively earned a hate week. (His wife even had to use her maiden name, to avoid negative association with him)

Have you seen pools, in which Americans have to describe how according to them the federal budget looks like? You would be impressed how much they believe that their gov gives in foreign aid. ;)
(no, that's not mocking Americans, I doubt that in my country we would get more reasonable answers)

I'm not American so not focusing on the US but speaking generally about the west (though it applies to most nations: education is not evenly distributed). Regardless you again fail to address my point but dance around it: if you advocate that education credentials can show who the top 20% are how will you account for founding inequalities if a meritocratic society was formed from a contemporary western democracy now?

I do not advocate education credentials, but exactly to avoid that - a standardized test. Which inequalities I should account for?

As argument I would like to give from Steven Pinker's book The Better Angels of Our Nature, the arguments that he gave at the end of the book concerning higher intelligence and higher willingness to cooperate, lower likeness to go to war and higher tolerance to others.

(Technical question to you as moderator - it's not a public domain, how should I give a link to that? I feel that I can either risk not backing my claims or even worse giving link to pirate site - I would like to avoid both)

 

[Travis_King]

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.

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.

 

[Mentalist]

William Shockley, James Watson, Charles Darwin, R.L. Moore... Know what, I found a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

So, I disagree with, "higher intelligence means more tolerant and less likely to go to war." For war, it depends on interest. If there is nothing in it, then war is less likely, however, if there is something to gain, it becomes more likely.

I disagree and agree with specific points on the topic. The more literate and reasoned people should be allowed to vote (keeping everything else constant), however those unable to vote should have representatives that speak for their interests, etc... If we discount those unable to vote (I'd probably make it in that bunch if the test is multiple choice), then who will represent us? We would need to rely entirely on the "elite" to consider our interests. When living in a centralized place of like-minded people, you tend to fall into specific outlooks that seem reasonable to everyone that is within the group, however, it is unreasonable to everyone else, thus it turns chaotic later on.

 

[Evo]

however those unable to vote should have representatives that speak for their interests, etc... If we discount those unable to vote (I'd probably make it in that bunch if the test is multiple choice), then who will represent us?

So, on one hand you agree a certain group isn't smart enough to vote, but you want this group to be represented. Would you elect this representative? I guess you want this representative to carry weight proportionate to the number of people that can't vote, so as to be fair to them. Wait, you can't vote. :uhh:

 

[Mentalist]

I was thinking it would act more like a government union where the employee (in this case, the people unable to vote) don't necessarily elect their representative but the representative votes and debates on their behalf in political matters.

 

[Travis_King]

I was thinking it would act more like a government union where the employee (in this case, the people unable to vote) don't necessarily elect their representative but the representative votes and debates on their behalf in political matters.

If we are to even contemplate the merits of this proposition, wouldn't it have to be a fundamental part of this system that all voters are supposed to have the well being of those unable to vote in mind?

If you require representatives to fight for the non-voters, then doesn't that mean that you don't trust the voters to do the responsible thing, thus negating the primary motivation for the system?

 

[Evo]

I was thinking it would act more like a government union where the employee (in this case, the people unable to vote) don't necessarily elect their representative but the representative votes and debates on their behalf in political matters.

This isn't true, government union employees do elect their representatives.

Standards of conduct provisions, formerly set forth in sec. 18 of EO 11491, have been incorporated into the CSRA under sec. 7120. Similar provisions for labor organizations representing members of the Foreign Service in the Department of State and in other agencies are contained in sec. 1017 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (FSA), 22 U.S.C. 4117. Regulations pertaining to these provisions have been issued by the Assistant Secretary for Labor-Management Standards (Assistant Secretary). These regulations incorporate many LMRDA provisions, particularly those related to elections of union officers and to reporting, making them applicable to unions subject to the CSRA or FSA. For example, the regulations include provisions on a bill of rights for union members, on the election of union officers, and on the reporting of union finances.

http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/rights_resps.htm

 

[mheslep]

I was thinking it would act more like a government union where the employee (in this case, the people unable to vote) don't necessarily elect their representative but the representative votes and debates on their behalf in political matters.

My bold

This isn't true, government union employees do elect their representatives.

http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/rights_resps.htm

And elsewhere on the DoL site:

Professional and other staff members of a union need not be elected if they do not determine policy but are employed only to carry out the union's policy decisions. These persons are subject to the control and direction of the elected officials, and the act does not require such professional or other staff members to be elected.

The act does not require elections for union officials who do not perform executive functions, are not officers under the constitution and bylaws, and are not members of the executive committee or similar governing body of the union.

I'm unaware of any examples in existing unions.

 

[Evo]

My bold



And elsewhere on the DoL site:


I'm unaware of any examples in existing unions.

Did you have a point? Sure, not everyone in the union is elected. In your quote

Professional and other staff members of a union need not be elected if they do not determine policy but are employed only to carry out the union's policy decisions. These persons are subject to the control and direction of the elected officials

Bolding mine.

 

[Zarqon]

I see most people that argue against meritocracy in this thread have arguements against the more extreme form of it, when some parts of the population are shut out from the entire voting process.

However, it seems to me that most of those arguements lose validity if you consider the softer forms of it, i.e. when you have a requirement to vote based on something like a specific education level or a specialized course. In this case everyone has the possiblity to pass the requirements, regardless of what they started as, which means that everyone has the possibility to vote if it's important enough to them.

In this version of it, you never shut anyone out permanently, thus maintaining democracy, but what you gain is that the average voter will make a more informed decision (because I don't think anyone can argue getting educated makes you less informed?) and a more informed decision should never be worse.

 

[Czcibor]

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.

When a person decides matters of his own life, when makes his own decisions, takes the risk and gains possible benefits - there I indeed see his freedom. When takes part in voting where there is a tiny group - then indeed his views still matters. However, where takes part in election in which millions - he has no effective influence on the final decision (I've seen once calculation for US that is less probable to cast a vote that would affect the outcome of presidential election, then to die in car accident on the way to pools)

When anyway decision concerning your life will be done effectively by someone else, then a question appears - who do you want to make it in your name? Would you prefer a to select at random representative sample from whole your population or only from more educated part?

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?

Can a seriously physically disabled person be a hard line patriot? Can such person be even willing to die for his country? Does it mean that such person would be very useful soldier on the front line?

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.

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?

My line of reasoning here is the following:
If a person simply can't do due diligence, than such person wouldn't do that. Assuming that a person is able do to do due diligence, then he would either do that or not, both events have probability above 0. Assuming that I eliminate from sample people who would automatically fail, the overall answer should improve.
The system should be improvement not if there would be no jerks among more educated people, but also when the percentage of jerks among is not higher than in general population.

Concerning erroneous assumption and attempts to adjust that, have you read "The myth of rational voter"?

They tried to adjust what would economist Ph.D. would believe if they had features (ex. income) of average voter.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa594.pdf

(EDIT: That's Cato, so they took it for granted that only more market is the answer for problem they nicely proved in research)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

They tried to adjust what would economist Ph.D. would believe if they had features (ex. income) of average voter.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa594.pdf

This is a very bias source that is trying to support the idea that a free market system would be better for everyone but the public are too ignorant to see it.

 

[Czcibor]

This is a very bias source that is trying to support the idea that a free market system would be better for everyone but the public are too ignorant to see it.

(EDIT: That's Cato, so they took it for granted that only more market is the answer for problem they nicely proved in research)

Yes, so don't follow their conclusion, but merely the way in which they tested how views change with increased knowledge, and even trying to explain that's just as matter of more income failed.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, so don't follow their conclusion, but merely the way in which they tested how views change with increased knowledge, and even trying to explain that's just as matter of more income failed.

Perhaps I've missed it because I've only skimmed but where is the methods section where they explain in detail how they came by the charts they are using? At the moment all they have is some bar charts showing that a group labeled "enlightened public" agree more with economists than the public but I can't see an explanation of what enlightened is, who was in this survey, how many people, discussions of the limitations etc.

What I'm trying to get at is you realize this isn't a peer-reviewed, credible source right? Is woefully limited and biased.

 

[Czcibor]

Perhaps I've missed it because I've only skimmed but where is the methods section where they explain in detail how they came by the charts they are using? At the moment all they have is some bar charts showing that a group labeled "enlightened public" agree more with economists than the public but I can't see an explanation of what enlightened is, who was in this survey, how many people, discussions of the limitations etc.

What I'm trying to get at is you realize this isn't a peer-reviewed, credible source right? Is woefully limited and biased.

So your point is that Cato Institute is evil. I understood it.

Quoting the article:

To estimate the beliefs of the enlightened public, I first regressed economic beliefs on respondents’ characteristics, including income, job security, income growth, sex, race, party identification, ideology, education, and “econ” (a dummy variable equal to 1 if the respondent is an economist, and 0 otherwise).
Then, for each equation, I calculated the predicted belief assuming a respondent had the general public’s average income, job security, income growth, sex, race, party identification, and ideology, combined with a PhD in economics

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So your point is that Cato Institute is evil. I understood it.

No...are you trying to troll? If not why are you deliberately misinterpreting what I've said?

Quoting the article:

Where does that quote explain what determines that someone is enlightened?

 

[Czcibor]

No...are you trying to troll? If not why are you deliberately misinterpreting what I've said?

No, I'm just a bit annoyed that you put impressively high effort into discrediting the article, while relatively limited into just reading it (and maybe then showing its shortcomings).

Where does that quote explain what determines that someone is enlightened?

It simply explains how opinion of hypothetical "enlightened public" is calculated, based on regression model.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

No, I'm just a bit annoyed that you put impressively high effort into discrediting the article, while relatively limited into just reading it (and maybe then showing its shortcomings).

Lol that wasn't impressively high effort and considering I started my comment with a clarification your hyperbole and annoyance seem unnecessary

It simply explains how opinion of hypothetical "enlightened public" is calculated, based on regression model.

Do you not see anything wrong with this? Like how there is no real data being discussed?

 

[Czcibor]

Do you not see anything wrong with this? Like how there is no real data being discussed?

What do you mean by real data? You want to see his raw data and check whether regression was done correctly?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What do you mean by real data? You want to see his raw data and check whether regression was done correctly?

No I mean that he hasn't defined enlightened public then gone out to see if data in the real world matches his predictions.

 

[Czcibor]

No I mean that he hasn't defined enlightened public then gone out to see if data in the real world matches his predictions.

So you expect him to find a purely hypothetical beings in real world?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So you expect him to find a purely hypothetical beings in real world?

No, I expect that if you are going to argue that society would be better off if only select individuals were allowed to vote you support it with more than "according to this model hypothetical 'enlightened' members of the public would agree more with economists."

 

[BobG]

Would it be wrong to require people to pass a US citizenship test before being given the right to vote?

US Citizenship Practice Tests

Hopefully, being able to vote wouldn't be a very exclusive club, but it would probably be more exclusive than one would think.

Totally off topic, but why do you only need 60% to pass the US Citizenship test and 75% to pass the Canadian Citizenship test? (I, unfortunately, came up just short of passing the Canadian test, but at least I knew Canada's favorite sport! But why do you need to know Canada's favorite sport in order to become a citizen? And why did I choose Alberta as my home province anyway?! I missed every question on Alberta!)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Totally off topic, but why do you only need 60% to pass the US Citizenship test and 75% to pass the Canadian Citizenship test? (I, unfortunately, came up just short of passing the Canadian test, but at least I knew Canada's favorite sport! But why do you need to know Canada's favorite sport in order to become a citizen? And why did I choose Alberta as my home province anyway?! I missed every question on Alberta!)

Citizen ship tests are notoriously weird in the UK. Here it's popular every now and then for newspapers to print a selection of questions to see if people can answer them. Invariably most get low scores because of esoteric questions about points of British history or the like that no one ever hears about except once in school.

For example http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/quiz/2012/jul/05/uk-citizenship-test

 

[mheslep]

Did you have a point? Sure, not everyone in the union is elected. In your quote Bolding mine.

Not, "not everyone in the union", but the full time professional staff and non-executive union officials need not be elected, which might mean a very large bureaucracy. The job titles for a lot of these staff folks include the term https://careers-seiu.icims.com/jobs/1409/bilingual-spanish-union-representative---organizer/job, even if the law means something else when using the term.

 

[nanosiborg]

-better educated portion of population should in general make better decisions;

Depends on biases and agendas, as well as available alternatives. Eg., if there's no substantial difference between alternative candidate choices, and I think this is the case in many (most?) elections, then a coin flip is sufficient.

-better educated people should be in general harder to mislead in add campaign,

Again, depends on biases and agendas of voters. The better educated among us are also biased. They're just better at rationalizing and defending their biases.

thus financing add campaigns would be less tempting;

Candidates are spending other people's money. Ad volume won't decrease, imo, though ad content might be different.

-better educated people in general tend to prefer more moderate positions;

Not necessarily true. Maybe it's definitely not true. Don't know. Gazillions of counterexamples.

-world is simply more complicated than in the past (ex. more information that can be known, moving from simple night watch gov towards all encompassing state, deep economic ties with whole world);

This is true, but not clear how this affects what one needs to know to make a choice between two candidates. Just being more educated in general, in the things you mentioned that might be tested, wouldn't necessarily make a difference. Anyway, one could cite many examples of people looking at exactly the same information and coming to opposite conclusions about it.

-we don't mind to test someone skills before giving him driving licence, while creating reasonable policy is harder than driving;

Bad comparison. Voting is a fundamental 'right' that people have sacrificed their lives to bring about. Driving isn't.

It isn't clear what benefits, if any, might result from limiting the voting pool to a certain % of the population by way of some sort of test. One negative effect would be the massive disenfranchisement of the general population leading to unpredictable forms and magnitudes of social unrest and conflict.

Can't answer your OP question, but it seems like a bad idea to me.

 

[Czcibor]

Depends on biases and agendas, as well as available alternatives. Eg., if there's no substantial difference between alternative candidate choices, and I think this is the case in many (most?) elections, then a coin flip is sufficient.

Well, if that what you say concerning coin is true, then I don't see special need of democracy. One respectable civil servant with a coin (plus a few journalist that would videorecord that) would be sufficient and much cheaper than a whole election campaign.

(you may even try to justify that like Coptic Church which select their pope by lots and claim that such choice is made by God ;) )

Again, depends on biases and agendas of voters. The better educated among us are also biased. They're just better at rationalizing and defending their biases.

Do you think that the may be less biased?

Candidates are spending other people's money. Ad volume won't decrease, imo, though ad content might be different.

So at best only brighter political adds?

Not necessarily true. Maybe it's definitely not true. Don't know. Gazillions of counterexamples.

Well, I would not ask you to post here gazillions of counterexamples. (that could presumably crash the forum as DOS attack :D ) However, I would be curious to see at least one or at best a few. But of a aggregated data. Where do you find a case where better educated people select more radical or less responsible idea/party than the general population?

As an example I use my fatherland (Poland) with multiparty system and compare three parties:
- PiS (Law and Justice) - nationalistic, religious, economically rather left wing (or left wing when it's matter of gov expenditures, while right wing when its matter of taxes and it don't see here any contradiction)
- PO (Civic Platform) - started as free market, moderately right wing on social issues. On its way towards power it became centrist.
- RP (Palikot's Movement) - started lead by businessman who decided to become a celebrity. It's all ideology revolves around being against Roman Catholic Church, so left wing on social issues. Undecided on economic issues.
I ignore here PSL (peasant party) and SLD (theoretically former communists but in practice an ideology free party).

PiS and PO are the main parties. With increased education the support for PO increases (among people with higher education the relation is 2:1 for them, while for people who lack finished secondary education it loses 1:2) So maybe secular ideology among better educated people? Not specially - anti-church RP maintains roughly the same support regardless of education.

I may find you links to pools, but they would be in Polish. If you want to use Google translate to check me - feel free to ask.

Maybe Polish politics is unrepresentative. However, I'm quite curious in which countries the outcome would be exactly opposite.

Bad comparison. Voting is a fundamental 'right' that people have sacrificed their lives to bring about. Driving isn't.

Why it is a fundamental right?
(Yes, seriously, how is that determined what's fundamental right is, and why first world countries tend to have different ideas what's a fundamental right - right to bear arms - USA vs. Japan or right to live - provided by gov health care insurance USA vs. EU)

Also to add - independence is (was?) also a fundamental right for which generations of my compatriots were sacrificing their lives. (you don't want a long lecture about all hopeless insurgencies and repressions after them, do you?) At the moment they all seem even more futile when EU evolves from a free trade area to a federation.

Technically speaking - using as argument the fact that lives were sacrificed for something isn't a sunk cost fallacy?

 

[Czcibor]

I've found data for Germany - support of party, pending on education
http://fss.plone.uni-giessen.de/fss...zen unterschiedlicher Bevölkerungsgruppen.pdf

Guess which party has the least educated electorate?

(page 5, neonazi NPD)

 

[nanosiborg]

Well, if that what you say concerning coin is true, then I don't see special need of democracy.

The "special need" of a democracy is that it gives a populace some measure of control over potentially abusive politicians. Two candidates being virtually identical doesn't erase the value of universal suffrage to a society.

Do you think that the [better educated] may be less biased?

Not necessarily. Eg., the members of the US congress.

So at best only brighter political adds?

Yes, more sophisticated, high end or upscale. Primarily to keep a candidate in the public consciousness. It might even result in more money being spent on ads.

However, I would be curious to see at least one or at best a few. But of a aggregated data. Where do you find a case where better educated people select more radical or less responsible idea/party than the general population?

David Duke (LSU class of 1974) former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. G.W. Bush (Yale class of 1968) former US president, and born again Christian fundamentalist. Noam Chomsky, Harvard professor and radical political commentator. The aggregate of highly educated people in favor of marijuana legalization. The US congress. Etc. Etc.

Why it is a fundamental right?

In a country with universal suffrage, voting is a more or less fundamental right. Silly to nitpick this. I'm sure you understand the different values placed on voting and driving.