this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
63 points (87.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43907 readers
1213 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You should take a look at how simple civics tests have already been used in the US election system. It did not go well.
Just did a refresher per your request... We did not ever to my knowledge use civics tests. We used literacy tests and what made them particularly offensive was they had various exemptions for white people or simplified variants for white people.
I am very icy to the idea of tests in general due to the effects having a "test" to vote could have. However, having a very low bar test of some sort administered without exceptions ... it might make sense.
We don't let people drive whose eyes fail a safety test. Maybe we shouldn't let people vote if they don't even have a surface level understanding of what they're voting for.
I'm not saying do it, but maybe we shouldn't totally write it off because of some bad behavior without any safeguards to prevent bad behavior.