I learned about an example of this in an ancient Chinese history class, and I think it could be a good element of a free democracy with one caveat. I don't think any score should be necessary for someone to take office. I think it should serve rather as a means of assessing knowledge of government and proposed governing methods that is publicly available, but shouldn't be a barrier to hold office. I think our Founders were right to place significant limits on barriers to running for office.
Each candidate who stands for election or re-election would complete a civics and government test that is the same for everyone who takes it, but different each election cycle so that it isn't something a candidate just memorizes by studying.
I'd considered something similar. Just take a test and if you do badly, then we have a public score. "Count Dracula or whatever" wants to run for Senate but they couldn't even be a citizen.
I wonder how much you know about our stupid friends. From their point of view, they're fighting a war of cultural and economic survival. They're not going to be amenable to turning away useful foot-soldiers based on IQ, any more than you would be in suitably analogous circumstances (use your imagination). They will oppose this en bloc and characterize it as "elitist", and the anti-elitism argument will resonate strongly amongst the non-stupid as well.
Instead of targeting the long-existing problem of stupid people voting, maybe we should target the relatively new problems of (1) every stupid person having a megaphone and (2) out-of-control, monetized misinformation. There's no Constitutional right to broadcast your 2-a.m. toilet thoughts to everyone on the planet sans human filtering of any kind, and there's no Constitutional right for multi-billion-dollar corporations to monetize provably false misinformation.
I learned about an example of this in an ancient Chinese history class, and I think it could be a good element of a free democracy with one caveat. I don't think any score should be necessary for someone to take office. I think it should serve rather as a means of assessing knowledge of government and proposed governing methods that is publicly available, but shouldn't be a barrier to hold office. I think our Founders were right to place significant limits on barriers to running for office.
Each candidate who stands for election or re-election would complete a civics and government test that is the same for everyone who takes it, but different each election cycle so that it isn't something a candidate just memorizes by studying.
Good post!
I'd considered something similar. Just take a test and if you do badly, then we have a public score. "Count Dracula or whatever" wants to run for Senate but they couldn't even be a citizen.
I wonder how much you know about our stupid friends. From their point of view, they're fighting a war of cultural and economic survival. They're not going to be amenable to turning away useful foot-soldiers based on IQ, any more than you would be in suitably analogous circumstances (use your imagination). They will oppose this en bloc and characterize it as "elitist", and the anti-elitism argument will resonate strongly amongst the non-stupid as well.
Instead of targeting the long-existing problem of stupid people voting, maybe we should target the relatively new problems of (1) every stupid person having a megaphone and (2) out-of-control, monetized misinformation. There's no Constitutional right to broadcast your 2-a.m. toilet thoughts to everyone on the planet sans human filtering of any kind, and there's no Constitutional right for multi-billion-dollar corporations to monetize provably false misinformation.
I figured out a whole response to this while I was driving, based on what I read at a traffic light. It involved jokes about Delaware.
But... like... yes. There is a Constitutional right to broadcast your toilet thoughts.