Hot Topic: Voting Tests

I had a rather heated conversation with some family members over this topic during the Thanksgiving holiday, and at the time I don’t think I was effectively communicating my reasons for believing as I do. So let me lay it out simply.

I believe that American citizens should take a test before they can vote. That test should measure various kinds of intelligences, knowledge of current events, knowledge of American and global history, knowledge of geography, and knowledge of political philosophy. Many Americans would not pass this test, and many would lose the right to vote. Unfair? Un-American. Maybe – but this is what the Founding Fathers believed as they created the Senate. My support for this argument? Read on.

Image that we’ve got a small village. Here’s a few of the people who live in the village: a gourmet chef, who graduated from a prestigious culinary school; a science teacher, who has a degree in science from a four-year university; a fast-food worker and high-school dropout who happens to be an accomplished hunter; a four-star general; a college professor with a Ph.D in political science; a medical doctor; and a computer technician.

You live in this village, too.

One day, your computer breaks. To whom do you take your computer? That’s a thousand-dollar investment; you don’t want to trust it to just anyone. The computer technician has taken classes in how to repair a computer and he’s passed several certification exams. So, do you go to the high-school dropout? Nope, you take it to the computer technician. In this scenario, you have $1000 worth of property you’re protecting.

Now, you send your children to school. Who do you want to teach them about science? There’s a science teacher – not only has this person studied science, but this person has passed a state certification exam to be able to teach. All kinds of exams to graduate from college, and finally a certification exam. This is the person you want teaching science to your kids, not the chef. In this scenario, you’re protecting your kids’ education and learning – something every parent cares greatly about.

OK, so now your kids are graduating from school and you want to throw them a party. You’ve got 20 guests coming, and you want to make sure they don’t get sick from improperly cooked ribs – after all, food poisoning can mean death! Who do you get to cook your meal? Do you go to the computer technician, when there’s a gourmet chef in town who passed several exams and tests before graduating from culinary school? No way; you get the chef to cook your meal, because you can’t risk your guest’s health. In this scenario, the health (and possibly the lives) of 20 people are at stake.

Let’s say that, for whatever reason, you’ve been drafted to organize a class in gun safety. Fifty people will attend this class. Gun safety is serious business – misusing a gun, improperly cleaning it, and disrespect for the rules could result in death. Do you go to the college professor, who has never so much as picked up a gun in his life? Or do you approach the hunter, who has passed several NRA exams that certify him as a marksman? I’m thinking the hunter might make the better choice (the general is also an option). Risk: the lives of fifty (or more) people.

OK, the country has come under attack and your town needs to defend itself. Who should lead the defense? The science teacher? Why do that, when the four-star general has passed several exams to achieve his rank, and has a life of invaluable combat experience? Unless you’re a glibbering idiot, the general would be leading the defense – because the lives of a thousand people are at risk.

Now, it’s time to choose the next leader of your country. Assuming your country is like the United States, that leader has the power to annihilate 99.9% of human life with nuclear weapons – 6.1 billion people – or at the very least, as the power to ruin your nation – 280 million people. A hell of a lot more lives than the general is responsible for, or the hunter, or the science teacher, or the chef, or the computer tech. Who takes on this awesome responsibility?

Why is it supposedly a bad thing to restrict the responsibility for the lives of six billion people to those qualified to make that kind of decision? Who should be responsible for the lives of six billion people – the chef? The hunter? The science teacher? We are willing to turn far lesser responsibilities over to others, but there is some emotional response to the threat to take away the greatest responsibility of all and put it in the hands of those most qualified to make it. Why? What is the logical reason for this? What is the mental block?

It does not make sense. Period.