Voter Cognition Test Act

[Northwest Americana]

Just proposed this sometime ago and I thought I might as well see what others think of it. My first WA proposal, so constructive critisism would be appreciated:

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Voter Cognitition Test Act
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Northwest Americana

Description: Resolved-


That this WA Resolution states that in all democratic member nations-

1. Some voters "of voting age" are highly uneducated and illiterate to such an effect that a child could score a higher score on a test than them

2. Some young adults are just as literate as adults in terms of world affairs and internal politics (a 17 year old honor student may be more knowledgeable than a 40 high-school drop out)

3. An international test of voter intelligence should occur in all democratic member nations and those who are unintelligent should not be able to vote; and those who are but were unable to

The test would be created by a committee on which nation-states that have the highest population intelligence would chair. They would ensure the test:

1. Is difficult enough to clearly show the difference between the average adult voter and the average "empowered" child

2. That illiterates of society who don't take their education and furtherment of life seriously will NOT be allowed to vote

3. That those literate (AND ARE COMMON) will be able to

4. This would abolish all voting age restrictions; the test would be administered to those who want it.

5. The test must ensure the "wanntabee" voter has a proficient and adult-like knowledge of:

-science
-mathematics
-international affairs
-internal politics
-language arts
-literacy in reading

6. Other than as mandated in section 4, distribution of the test would be mandated by member states themselves

[The Emmerian Unions]

It's illegal, methinks.

[Northwest Americana]

Hm? How so?

[The Emmerian Unions]

Changes the way people play the game.

[Northwest Americana]

No it doesn't.....



I didn't write anything in there that would change the way people play the game (at least intentionally)

[Glen-Rhodes]

(OOC: It would be illegal because of a category violation. How in the world is an aptitude test 'Furtherment of Democracy'? Not to mention denying the right to vote, in some cases. Oh, and it's also illegal for committee violations; we don't get to decide who chairs committees.)

[Rutianas]

OOC: Wouldn't it also be illegal for optionality? It allows any government that's not a 'democratic' form to ignore it. Or am I mistaken?

[Robbenshire]

I have some suggestions. Firstly, I will use the term "cognizance" instead of "intelligence", because in order to preserve democracy, the voters must retain their free will. Using the term "intelligence" implies right and wrong political answers, akin to mathematical certainty, of which there is none in politics. Should a government put a test in place in which the only right answers are ones that agree with the current government's policies, democracy would become very controlled. Instead, the test should focus on understanding of current issues and political actions being proposed, which is cognizance and not intelligence. In that regard I agree with you: democracy can only accurately represent the will of the people if the people understand the issues well enough to vote in a way that accurately represents their desires.

Now in terms of the formatting of your proposal.

2. Some young adults are just as literate as adults in terms of world affairs and internal politics (a 17 year old honor student may be more knowledgeable than a 40 high-school drop out)

This (and the whole proposal) ought to have the example stripped. Your proposal should be stated and not explained: the wording should be solid enough to allow the reader to understand its intent without needing additional writing to explain it. Your proposal indicates that only the intelligent should be allowed to vote, thus you should not need to dumb down your proposal.

3. An international test of voter intelligence should occur in all democratic member nations and those who are unintelligent should not be able to vote; and those who are but were unable to

This makes no sense. Those who are but were unable to what, will or are what? Please clarify this section.

This should be clarified:

The test would be created by a committee on which nation-states that have the highest population intelligence would chair. They would ensure the test:

It currently does not indicate a desired level of cognizance to be achieved to chair the committee, or, if the committee is to be chaired by the top X percent of democratic nations, it does not indicate a specific percentage.

3. That those literate (AND ARE COMMON) will be able to

Will be able to what? Please clarify this section.

I have condensed the purpose of the list with this entry in the list to show poor formatting:

The test would be created by a committee on which nation-states that have the highest population intelligence would chair. They would ensure the test:
4. This would abolish all voting age restrictions; the test would be administered to those who want it.

This needs to be updated.

This section has numerous problems:

5. The test must ensure the "wanntabee" voter has a proficient and adult-like knowledge of:
-science
-mathematics
-international affairs
-internal politics
-language arts
-literacy in reading

Not only is "wannabe" blatantly misspelled, it is slang and should not be in a formal proposal. In addition, a political cognizance test should only determine the voter's understanding of current political issues. The voter's literacy or understanding of science or mathematics is unimportant if they are able to gather and understand enough information to accurately determine the effect their vote will have. The test therefore needs to be updated for every election or proposition.

I urge you to more carefully consider how well constructed your proposals are before you post one suggesting that only intelligent people should be allowed to vote.

OOC: Now, in terms of gameplay, this mandates action as it applies to certain nations. This is not optional and does not break rules, any more than mandating that an incredibly poor government stockpile resources for humanitarian aid (as mandated by the Humanitarian Aid Coordination Act which is currently being voted on and seems likely to be passed, and gives no provision for nations of a very poor economy). All governments are required to adhere to WA resolutions as they are able. Another example would be a nuclear disarmament act, which would mandate shutting down the production of nuclear weapons, being considered illegal because not all WA nations have nuclear weapons programs in place.

EDIT: This is categorized as a furthering of democracy, and this categorization has been challenged. However, the proposal states at its opening that poorly educated citizens do not accurately represent the will of the people in their votes, and that this system is proposed to improve that accuracy. Thus it would make democracy more effective, which would, in fact, be an improvement, if the proposal accomplishes what it claims.

[Doctor Cyclops]

This is a terribly unprofessional proposal. The language is coarse and informal, and the text descends into a recounting of the author's own personal gripes. If the author has issues with the intelligence of his voters, I suggest that he take up those problems with appropriate national legislation instead of wasting the world community's time.

This is categorized as a furthering of democracy, and this categorization has been challenged. However, the proposal states at its opening that poorly educated citizens do not accurately represent the will of the people in their votes, and that this system is proposed to improve that accuracy. Thus it would make democracy more effective, which would, in fact, be an improvement, if the proposal accomplishes what it claims.

How exactly does disenfranchising voters according to an arbitrary intelligence test constitute furthering democracy?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The honoured ambassador does not agree with the idea because with democracy it is every registered single adult on the electoral roll that has the right to vote no matter how illiterate they are. That being said, this probably suggests why crosses in ballot papers came into being back in the early days of Charlotte Ryberg.

Yours,

[Northwest Americana]

I appreciate all the constructive critisism, truthfully.





This thing will die eventually right? It's kind of humiliating now xp

[Robbenshire]

This is categorized as a furthering of democracy, and this categorization has been challenged. However, the proposal states at its opening that poorly educated citizens do not accurately represent the will of the people in their votes, and that this system is proposed to improve that accuracy. Thus it would make democracy more effective, which would, in fact, be an improvement, if the proposal accomplishes what it claims.

How exactly does disenfranchising voters according to an arbitrary intelligence test constitute furthering democracy?

By making it more effective and accurate. Granted, the proposed intelligence test needs to be replaced with a political cognizance test to be effective, but ultimately it isn't the real effect that determines the category but the intended effect. Basically, just because you don't think it will further democracy, doesn't mean it isn't intended to, or even in fact that it won't.

To use an analogy, suppose that you have a room full of 40 people, and you are going to ask them to vote on which color to paint the room. Unfortunately, five of the people are blind, and ten are colorblind. Ten more don't know how to differentiate between mauve and maroon. I think I can say with some certainty that if each of these people voted, the vote would not be a very useful representation of the people's wishes, in some cases because the people are physically incapable of knowing what they're voting for, and in other cases because the people are uneducated in color, and therefore may make shortsighted votes.

The proposition begins with a claim that the understanding of political issues limits the ability of voters to make informed choices, and that uninformed votes cripple democracy by limiting its actual representation of the people. It then (in an admittedly poorly formatted fashion) attempts to correct this issue. This is a proposed improvement to the democratic process, and therefore belongs in the "furtherment of democracy" category.

[Malikov]

Try changing the resolution so that it administers the test to minors only. That way it doesn't have the power to stop people from voting. In a democratic country voting is a right, and shouldn't be taken away from a non-minor.

[Robbenshire]

In a democratic country voting is a right.

Ah, true. But not all citizens have access to all rights. Criminals in the US, for example, do not have the right to vote. Therefore, if it is acceptable to strip a citizen of their right to vote by merit of their deeds, then it should also be acceptable to strip a citizen of their right to vote by merit of their cognizance.

[Malikov]

People can't help if their I.Q. is lower than someone elses. I do realize that I.Q. appears to have nothing to do with cognization, however, I.Q. has a strong co-relation. Criminals don't have to commit crimes, but some people shouldn't be stripped of the right to vote, when they can't help it.

[Ezra Cornell]

I think this is a good idea for an "Issue".

[Tanaara]

Crininals Choose to commit crimes. Many people of low cognition/ IQ can understand the issues if people are willing to take the time to expalin them in a simple and understandable fashion!

[Doctor Cyclops]

Basically, just because you don't think it will further democracy, doesn't mean it isn't intended to, or even in fact that it won't.

That argument works both ways. Just because you think it will further democracy, doesn't mean it will.

To use an analogy, suppose that you have a room full of 40 people, and you are going to ask them to vote on which color to paint the room. Unfortunately, five of the people are blind, and ten are colorblind. Ten more don't know how to differentiate between mauve and maroon. I think I can say with some certainty that if each of these people voted, the vote would not be a very useful representation of the people's wishes, in some cases because the people are physically incapable of knowing what they're voting for, and in other cases because the people are uneducated in color, and therefore may make shortsighted votes.

This is flawed reasoning. First, it assumes that blind people would even have an opinion on what color the wall should be painted. Second, political issues are seldom so cut and dry. Third, we run into a problem of qualifications. Why is only this bare minimum of knowledge adequate for voting? Why stop at this exam? Why not restrict voting only to people who have relevant knowledge of the issue at hand? In your example above, would colorblind people be denied a vote on the color of the wall just because they can't distinguish between red and green?

The proposition begins with a claim that the understanding of political issues limits the ability of voters to make informed choices, and that uninformed votes cripple democracy by limiting its actual representation of the people. It then (in an admittedly poorly formatted fashion) attempts to correct this issue. This is a proposed improvement to the democratic process, and therefore belongs in the "furtherment of democracy" category.

You are assuming that there is some kind of universal definition of "informed" that we can look to as a guide. The truth is that this exam would be written by human beings, in effect making a person's right to vote dependent upon the opinion of another person. How does that further democracy?

[Malikov]

Leave well enough alone. If someone is stupid enough to live in a democratic country, and vote for a communist party, because it ''sound neat'' or something, then tough beans. I doubt there are enough of them to actually get a communist party into power. So far, democracy has been working fine, so why try to fix something thats not broken?