[kennysoona]

> You could try to give people a basic test, but these 'literacy' tests were historically used to supress all kinds of minorities.

That doesn't mean they would b e used to oppress minorities today. Except the minority that is deemed too ignorant to be granted a right to vote based on failing the test.

> That is the true problem of democracy, it sucks, but everything else is miles worse.

I don't think that's true, it's just that there is little motivation to come up with better alternative and people who try just get shit on for even trying as though it were an insurmountable goal.

[lazide]

Have you not looked around lately?

In some places, of course it would be used to oppress minorities.

In other places, it would likely be used to oppress some other majority faction.

[kennysoona]

> In some places, of course it would be used to oppress minorities.

Not if the test and infrastructure for administering it is designed well to be resistant to this type of abuse, which it's possible to do.

[Jcowell]

Sure, but who, what body, would be established to do this and who would give the power to do so? With what oversight and with what enforcement?

[kennysoona]

With the current partisan deadlock, yeah, it would be kind of impossible to get anything passed. Ideally though the answer would be an independent, transparent body relying on solid research and making it's reasoning public and foolproof.

Ideally, the goal would be not for people to resent not passing thee test and being unable to vote, but being motivated to better themselves until they are able to vote.

[lazide]

So it would only be misused in places that have big problems, and would not be misused in places where there aren’t big problems?

And therefore it will actually help?

Is anyone actually this naive?

[kennysoona]

It wouldn't have to be misused anywhere. There is nothing naive about what I wrote, only your misinterpretation.