argument top image

Should there be a test to vote? Show more Show less
Back to question

Voting is an important aspect of political decisions. It decides the outcome of a country for better or for worse. If voting is so important, should there be tests to make sure people know exactly what they're voting for? Or do the civilians of the country have no problem deciding what's best?

No, there shouldn't be a test to vote Show more Show less

Tests to vote aren’t necessary. They take up too much time and effort from the voters. Plus, excluding voters who don’t pass the test will be discrimination. It’s not worth the effort and cost.
< (2 of 2)

Tests aren’t always accurate so there should not be a test to vote

Tests are used to test people’s knowledge and skill. But they are also under scrutiny. People wonder if it’s fair to use standardized testing because it’s a fixed system. If there were tests for voting, how accurate would they be?

The Argument

Tests aren’t always accurate. Standardized tests are a good example of this. Standardized tests measure everyone’s intelligence as a whole and makes an average.[1] This means that if a student isn’t up to par with the average, they get a lower grade on the test but in reality, they only need to improve a little. It would be unfair if someone failed a voting test because their score was below average.

Counter arguments

Although tests aren't always accurate, they could still be effective. The goal of a voting test is to make people realize how important voting is. For example, a computer's firewall can be broken into. But it would take much more effort to break into a strong firewall than a weak firewall. It’s better to have a test than no test at all.



[P1] Voting tests aren’t always accurate. [P2] Anyone could pass the test.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Although anyone could pass the test, it could limit the amount of non-competent voters.


This page was last edited on Friday, 9 Oct 2020 at 07:25 UTC

Explore related arguments