That means that the Governor is either persisting despite knowing better, or is remaining deliberately ignorant despite the expertise at his disposal. Either way, this is at least somewhat intentional.
I suspect it's a mix of both.
You don't have to be malicious to be incompetent.
But you're assuming the Governor would pass the basic test that even shows that he is competent at listening to other competent people.
I am sure the OP's suggestion was in good faith, just that they weren't aware of some of the history and potential repercussions.
The commenter's point is that these "tests" can be designed to be difficult for one race/community, but easy for another, thus preventing them from holding an office.
It's great to have high standards for public office, but it's the voters who should hold their elected officials to those, not an arbitrary test imposed by the government.
In the US, VoteSmart [0] and others have tried to do this with position surveys for years, but most politicians would prefer not to answer.
Edit: I don't even know why for some reason I forgot (probably because it comes without saying): basic wits.
And, seeing that somebody really calls is an "odd idea": no, there absolutely should be requirements. Getting the appropriate measurements, reliably and feasibly, that is difficult. Yet, still duly. Duty, in the same intensity that suggests that thing holding office should be flung into space.
> No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
The information you provided is a further alarm bell about the dire needs we have about vetting people in the current, desperate, worn out world. Normal social interaction as a way to fine tune the individual, the traditional selection way, shows to be ineffective today.
--
¹Oddly, in a world in which the concept of "identification" is increasingly spread, "curiously and consistently" I have not yet heard the expression "X identifies as a moral (and/or dignified, intelligent, sophisticated, compassionate, judicious, reliable...) agent". The concept of "identification" seems to be restricted to tribal matters (and, still notably, "earthly" criteria). These two interlinked factors are very telling about the issues in today's society.
Alternatively you could pick the person who's decisions have most often turned out to be good* ones, and hope that they continue making good* decisions.
* For whatever you think is good.
It is up to voters to evaluate their chosen candidates for their qualities and qualifications for the job. The biggest problem right now is that too many vote on party lines instead of for candidates based on their qualities.
> History is littered with examples of eugenics programs, but that doesn't mean we should ban eugenics.
To which I'd argue we should absolutely ban eugenics because of the history of eugenics. Just like we should ban arbitrary political entry testing because of the history of exactly that.
I'm not making an "apples Vs. oranges" comparison, I'm making an "apples vs. historical apples" one.
I'm looking at it from "test results should be public, anyone qualifies to run."
That wasn't an argument I made though. I asked:
> Who gets to set the test?
Which gets to the core of the point. The current requirements are fixed in legal stone and nobody gets to alter them. They aren't being [ab]used for political advantage.
People on here are proposing arbitrary ability tests that [someone] gets to create and alter using [some] undefined methodology.
You combine that with the history of ability-based testing (which, incidentally none of the existing requirements are) and it leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.