[rrc]

In a perfect system, I would like to see voting require a license. People require a driver's license because uneducated drivers can harm others. Uneducated voters can cause similar harm to others.

Taken to the extreme, you could have a direct democracy where individuals vote directly for proposed bills, bypassing the (usually vested) middleman. Voters would have to pass some competency exam on the subject of the bill before being allowed to cast a vote. In other words, you can't vote on internet regulation if you don't know how to access a web page.

The reason there will never be a license to vote is because you transfer an immense about of power to those who create the exams. Influence the exams and you decide the election. In addition, by putting up barriers towards voting, you decrease overall participation in the election, possibly alienating the general population.

Perhaps a better, more realistic option is to move towards direct democracy while simultaneously improving as much as possible education.

[forensic]

The current system already has a licensing scheme.

Instead of it being based on education though it is based on wealth. The wealthy, behind closed doors, agree to a large extent on plausible policies for the country.

Then they present a limited set of alternatives and let the masses indicate which alternative makes them happiest.

The purpose of democracy is not to DECIDE anything. It is to give the illusion that the masses are in control. Without this illusion, they would turn violent.

Rest assured, the only policies the masses have control over are things that are emotionally potent but irrelevant: gay marriage, pledge of allegiance, etc. Distractions.

[riffic]

we had this system in the past; it was incredibly racist.

read some history, chap.

[michaelkeenan]

rrc didn't deserve your condescending reply. Many policies were once implemented in a racist way. That isn't an argument against implementing them in a non-racist way. If you want to argue that the next implementation of voter tests will also be racist, you have not made the case.

[riffic]

I'm sorry you consider my reply to be condescending, as that is not my intention. I however find it discouraging when people refuse to learn from history's lessons.

[devmonk]

But, rrc has a point about voters requiring something to identify them, even if the reason for the license was problematic. The current system allows fraud which could affect close elections. I don't like the idea of a national ID, nor mark on the head or hand, but maybe just a picture of a registered voter and a date of the picture taken.

[riffic]

I reread rrc's comment, which seems could be interpreted as both ways; either to advocate requirement of positive identification to vote, or to require voters to take an exam to be licensed as a voter, which is what I believe what was meant.

regardless, literacy tests were done before, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws for a background of our (shameful) past.

[jonpaul]

A direct democracy is like two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. You can't trust the masses to make decisions like this.

[riffic]

Direct democracy is best left at an extremely local level. Otherwise it's glorified mob rule -- Tyranny of the Majority.

[Semiapies]

Instead, we have a system where the wolves elect a representative to determine who his supporters will have for dinner.