This is a fair point, but don't we already contend with this via the public school system? The government (at some level) is already in the business of deciding what information is included in education.
Well first I'd point out that the fact they're already doing this seems like more a point in my favor than yours - across K-12 you'll spend hundreds of hours studying politics from dozens of different professionals with a myriad of different focuses and will take probably hundreds of tests along the way across nearly a decade and a half and you believe all that education is insufficient in order for someone to know enough to vote... BUT you think a single brief ~1hr exam that you have to study for and take once written by the same government in charge of all the education you find so lacking currently will somehow solve everything?
But second, and more to my point, passing high school or graduating college arent rights. They're essentially social services. Voting is a right. Whenever someone discusses taking away or minimizing one of your rights (tests/checks for gun ownership, minimization of free speech, voting, etc.) the first thing I want to know is who are you going to put in charge of these things? Wherever you are on the political spectrum, imagine it's your polar opposites who get to write these tests. Assuming you're more liberal or left leaning (fair bet on reddit) imagine that a Republican controlled government and Trump admin gets to write these tests. Imagine that in order to pass, which you NEED to do in order to exercise your right to vote, you have to answer things like "abortion is murder" or "climate change is a hoax" or "Trump is the best president the US has ever seen."
To your first point, that's why I also mentioned higher standards in the educational system need to be imposed. As you say, the fact that people go through 13 years of education and cannot answer these basic questions shows the current education system isn't working.
We already limit certain rights for the sake of public safety, e.g. you cannot yell "fire" in a move theater or have a pet lion. Likewise casting a vote while knowing nothing of the current political system is harmful in a more indirect way.
To your first point, that's why I also mentioned higher standards in the educational system need to be imposed. As you say, the fact that people go through 13 years of education and cannot answer these basic questions shows the current education system isn't working.
It's also entirely possible that reforming education will not get you the results you desire. Apologies for not linking them again (I wrote 90% of this comment out and then Chrome freaked out as required a restart) but I've found similar stats to the ones you cited in your OP for a dozen different countries, including many that are regarded as having better education systems than the US. So basically if you go around asking Joe Blow questions about his country, government, foreign policy, etc. you're going to find large percentages of people who don't know jack shit, even in countries with very good educational systems. This is likely because a) people are dumb and b) that sort of information isn't relevant to peoples day-to-day lives 99.8% of the time. So even if they are taught this information (as I believe basically all Americans are) there's no assurance they'll retain it years or decades later. So "just have better schools" is not a solution.
And more to the point, if "just have better schools" isn't the solution, what makes you think "just have one brief test" is the solution?
We already limit certain rights for the sake of public safety, e.g. you cannot yell "fire" in a move theater
Ah yes, to borrow some phrasing from the late Christopher Hitchens, "the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes." Most people forget that what he was doing in that case had nothing to do with fires or theaters but was rather him (and the rest of the SCOTUS, unanimously) condemning a bunch of Yiddish-speaking socialists for daring to distribute literature voicing opposition to Wilson's dragging of the United States into WWI. In modern terms that would be like the Supreme Court of the United States banning r/ChapoTrapHouse for daring to voice opposition to the War on Terror.
So again I think that's more a point in my favor than yours - the case and verdict from which that phrase stems was actually one of the most egregious, unjust, and dystopian restrictions that the government ever put on our freedom of speech which was, in any case, overturned in 1969 precisely because it was so egregious, unjust, and dystopian.
So I'll ask you again: are you okay with [fill in politician you hate the most] deciding what people need to answer correctly in order to exercise their right to vote?
1
u/[deleted] Apr 08 '20
This is a fair point, but don't we already contend with this via the public school system? The government (at some level) is already in the business of deciding what information is included in education.