Weighted democracy

Let's say this got put to test in the next general election

>Voting is made universal across the country
>When you submit your vote, you also submit the results of a test you've just taken under supervision, both still anonymous
>The Test is a half-hour long standardized test, with formal and verbal logic questions, general knowledge questions, and questions on a given subject selected and publicly announced several month before the election.
>Results of your test weight your vote on a factor from 0 to 1
>If you decide not to take the Test this election, your vote will automatically be given a 0.25 weight
>You can't have access to the results of your test
>Caught cheaters are crossed off the electoral lists and banned from inscription for the next 15 years

What do you think of this idea

Sounds incredibly corruptible, especially since it's anonymous and you can't see the results of your test, so the government can just weight the votes of their opponents at a smaller size than their own votes, all it takes is for the person who counts and weighs the votes to be corruptible.

This is sort of how jim crow worked, by making the literacy tests specifically white southern english that the black population didnt really peak, they contended that the blacks were all illiterate and thus couldnt vote
Inb4 /pol/lacks
>blacks really are illiterate

But the main problem really is just that no one can fucking agree on how to measure intellegence

>for the person who counts and weighs the votes
The interest of a standard test is that it can be corrected by a machine.
Even if you want a human do to it, then you simply make so the corrector doesn't have access to the result of the vote, which he obviously shouldn't have

things like this did improve literacy levels in some countries

Actually most people agree that the IQ test is pretty good. Admit the reason that you don't recognize the IQ test as valid is because you desperately want to believe in racial equality and racial averages on IQ tests aren't equal.

I remember in school everytime the black kids got called on to read something it would take them twice as long and they needed help with words over 7 letters. There were a few white kids that were like that but there was only one black kid I went to school with who could read on the same level as everyone else.

I think it's stupid. Representative democracy works not because the electorate comes to notably better decisions about representatives than some other hypothetical system. It works because people can very much be affected by government action, and giving them an ability to peacefully affect the course of that government gives an outlet to their worries that would otherwise probably be met with armed revolt or some other form of destructive civil disobedience.

What's going to happen with your system is that sooner or later, identifiable patterns of people are going to emerge who tend to score lower or simply not take the tests. Their votes will comparatively be worth less. Government policymakers, who want to keep getting re-elected, will inevitably side against those population segments when their interests run counter to the interests of other population segments who tend to score better on these kinds of tests. Said group will now not only be losing the government game, but seeing itself relatively disenfranchised, and will start causing problems.

By having any sort of intellectual requirement you immediately disqualify a much higher portion of the black population than any other. You know it's true and you know why, that's why you immediately drew comparisons to Jim Crow.

Are you saying that as of now nobody cares about minorities because, well, they're not the majority and hence don't really matter on the results of an election?

Not that user, but the real problem with the system proposed is that it then becomes very easy for the haves to deny the have nots education specifically for the purpose of keeping them from voting.

The test could just be about who can vote and who cant vote.

dont make it anonymous

No, I'm not saying that. I don't know how you possibly got that notion from what I did say. I'm saying that disenfranchised minorities are usually uncared about by the government, and this idea by the OP is going to create disenfranchised minorities.

Digital votes can still be tampered with, this isn't foolproof.

Blacks were given different tests than whites. White guy gets "who was the first President", blacks were often asked to guess the number of jellybeans in a jar or something.

actually it was that if your grandfather couldve voted than you can, a grandfather clause basically

This won't work because the stupid people in society know their vote would get dimension and wouldn't want it. I think a much better to think to hope for is we just throw out democracy to begin with. I'm willing to support the first military coup we get....

Having the machine weight the test result is no more suspectable to corruption than having a machine count the votes.

It would still be problematic, since you can be a very intelligent individual yet very disconnected from the needs and plights of the knuckle-dragging masses. However stupid they are, their stupidity does not make them deserving of undue suffering, but a regime of high-IQ voters might just bring about decisions which, while intelligent, might be devoid of empathy. The very reverse might be true; if intelligence turns out to be correlated to higher degrees of human empathy, you might end up with intelligent voters making stupid decisions because their intelligence belies an upbringing more likely to foster higher degrees of empathy.

>The Test is a half-hour long standardized test, with formal and verbal logic questions, general knowledge questions, and questions on a given subject selected and publicly announced several month before the election.

Can't wait to make a massive profit selling test preparation kits and tutoring sessions to have-nots lmao.

Hell this is basically an income check too based on the tests difficulty. Also if the test is only held in certain areas that fucks over people who can't travel the distance without giving up work hours.

It's a bad idea. Technocracy sounds like common sense, the problem is that humans are not robots, your test WILL be corrupted, the rich and powerful WILL get the best score regardless of merit, and over time your test WILL become ossified and increasingly irrelevant to the actual needs of your society.

Okay, but what's the purpose of such test? Wouldn't it be easier to allow people after college/university to vote?

As someone studying exactly that: no fuck you IQ is still horrible

There is no 'general intelligence', everything is just based on the definitions of a specific researcher
Standardized testing is horrible as well, although it sometimes is 'the best thing' to do, there are incredibly many factors that can fuck you over, and to enforce it nation-wide without highly trained professional interpreters (which, by the way, don't even necessarily exist) of the scores, the scores would be laughably incorrect and falsely interpreted

Same, but worse, holds for personality tests or school tests; most are horribly used and/or horribly bad to begin with

IQ is stupid, except for possible extremes, and personality testing is even more stupid in all regards

Adding to that: man tests define IQ to be something entirely different, and there is no known consensus right now. There is just a few institutes claiming they have it the right way, while that cannot be proven at all

Cultural bias is also very fucking real, and I fucking know, just know, that you, , have no fucking clue about IQ testing at all
Literally every single person that I see making the argument that 'IQ differs across races, thus some races are dumber than others' have either never worked in the field of IQ testing, never studied it, or are too dumb to interpret the results anyway

>Cultural bias is also very fucking real
Well nobody is asking foreigners to vote so that's not really relevant

>IQ is still horrible

It's not just cultural bias between nations, but also between regions.

One example was an SAT question that compared water : water skis, to snow : ???

The correct answer was Toboggan. If you live in a part of the country that doesn't get snow, you'd likely not know what a Toboggan is.

Another example is

runner : marathon to oarsman: regatta