argument top image

Should there be a test to vote?
Back to question

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