In many countries around the world, before a foreign-born national can become a citizen of that country he must pass a citizenship test, meant to verify his knowledge of the country’s history, culture and politics. This is meant in part to ensure integration into the society of that country, but also to test that the right to vote in that country is not handed out to someone totally uninformed in regards to the context and concerns of the country.
Why then, if in that situation the right to vote is given out only to people who can prove their knowledge of the country’s context and affairs, past and present, in most other cases it’s given out simply based on the geographical location of one’s birth?
Obviously, citizenship should be granted to any person legally born within the borders of a country, but perhaps the right to vote should be divorced from it and only be granted to persons who can prove an interest in the governance and political process and a knowledge of it throughout their lives. Nowhere around the world is the right to drive given automatically to a citizen after reaching a certain age. The reason why that doesn’t happen is that we understand the need for a driver to possess some knowledge about how the system works so that he’ll be less likely to cause damages to other people, to himself or to property of any kind through his uninformed actions. But arguably uninformed voters cause far more damage through their actions, and the actions of the politicians they elect than all vehicle accidents combined. Why is it then, that we don’t apply the same standards when handing out licenses to vote in a democracy, that we apply when handing out driver’s licenses?
My idea thus far is this:
Start at the age of 16 (there’s no real difference in the development of a modern human between the ages of 16 and 18) and administer a test (the initial test could be thus given through the school system) for obtaining a voter’s license. The test would be meant to prove one’s interest in the political system, but also guarantee the person’s basic ability to participate meaningfully. Today a large percentage of votes are cast out of fear, hate, or considering a single issue. That’s akin to using a car as a kamikaze vehicle. You wouldn’t give a driver’s license to a stated kamikaze driver, now would you? The test should also be repeated through one’s life at intervals of 10-15 years to guarantee continuous interest and knowledgeability.
The whole system could and probably should be under the management of an unbiased AI (something that I’m not sure is currently possible - I’m talking about the unbiased part). The AI should be able to intake all elements of a country’s culture - historical, political and otherwise, decide what information should be tested for, come up with the questionnaire, oversee the administration of the test, the collection and evaluation of the results and subsequently take the necessary actions based on those results.
Besides ensuring the existence of a knowledgeable and interested voter base, the system would, perhaps, more importantly, safeguard the political class from becoming liars and manipulators, things that, as it stands, are almost compulsory requirements of getting the majority of votes. People corrupted in this way are naturally, far more likely to watch out for their own personal interest and to thus abuse the managerial power given to them.
Because, make no mistake, the only real reason for the existence of modern politicians is to manage the resources of a country or region, and as it stands, they seem to be doing an awful job of it. If things now seem to be working in most advanced nations, they work, almost in all cases, despite politicians, not because of them.
Of course, I’m perfectly aware that all this is just a utopian musing, trying to implement such a system today would just lead to voter suppression, control and manipulation in almost all of the world's current democracies.
Note: The first draft of this piece was written on the 13th of November 2016. Go figure. I wonder why?