I don’t know anything about the proposal or the person, but on its own, this seems like a prima facie great idea to me (in theory).
[0]https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/vivek-ramaswa...
Both those things sound good to me, though applying it universally to all ages would be preferred. And I wouldn't characterize it as 'arbitrary' necessarily- I think that if you let everyone vote without any pre-requisites at all your democratic process inevitably becomes a carnival sideshow, a shallow popularity contest where the win condition is to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Some baseline level of knowledge in the constituency would be a big improvement, even if we still have the unavoidable problem of 'who determines the pre-requisites' to grapple with.
Disclaimer: I know practically nothing about Vivek or any of his other positions, and this is obviously just a partisan talking point for him. But that doesn't mean the core problem being identified doesn't exist
[0]https://woodrow.org/news/how-well-americans-know-constitutio...
[1]https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/americans-know-more...
In practice I don't think 85% of Americans would be unqualified based on those stats, those numbers would improve dramatically if the incentive were there (IE. know these things or don't vote).
>If you give people the obligations of living in a democracy (paying taxes, subjecting themselves to its laws, signing up for the draft, etc.) without actually letting them participate in that democracy, then it's not a democracy anymore.
I see your point but I don't consider democracy to be a binary condition, it exists in degrees- IE. voting directly for policies vs. electing representatives to do so, etc. If one were barred from democratic participation on a permanent basis for reasons they have no control over, IE. Race/Sex, then yes democratic principles have been violated. But if all they have to do is learn some basic facts about the history of the institution they are participating in, I don't see that as 'not letting' them vote. It's more 'if you really care about voting you'll do some basic due diligence first'.
Or they don't have the time or wherewithal to study for a test for whatever reason. This is the problem with trying to apply a standard to 300 million people - if 0.5% of people are the corner cases, there are 1.5 million corner cases. There are actually 14 million households in the US without internet access.[0]
> I don't see that as 'not letting' them vote. It's more 'if you really care about voting you'll do some basic due diligence first
The fact is that in order to implement this, you would have to turn away people who show up to the polls having fulfilled their end of the social contract (paying taxes, following laws, etc.). You lose the consent of the governed. And even that ignores the question of who would write and grade the test in the first place - the US has a sordid history of literacy tests being used to intentionally exclude certain groups from the franchise, and you'd have to find someone (definitely not Vivek) who could be trusted to do that job. Having the best of intentions doesn't matter when the choice of which questions to include/excluded can swing elections and disenfranchise millions.
[0]https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/internet-access-st...
Then they certainly don't have the time or wherewithal to vote as an informed constituent. They'll base their vote on an ad they saw on the TV, or blind party affiliation. What else can they do if they don't know the most basic facts about the institution they're participating in?
>The fact is that in order to implement this, you would have to turn away people who show up to the polls having fulfilled their end of the social contract (paying taxes, following laws, etc.).
In that case I would consider adding 'have basic knowledge of the democratic processes you participate in' to the social contract. It's no more onerous of a requirement than paying taxes IMO
And your point on 'who writes/grades the test' is a very valid one, as you say there is a history of using such measures for political repression. You'd have to be very careful and vigilant about setting it up in a fair and bipartisan manner, which unfortunately I have little hope for. I'm more attracted to the principle of the measure than how it'd likely play out in reality.
I would agree that this is a prima facie good idea. I would say that it would be a prima facie good idea for all ages.
https://americanhistory.si.edu/democracy-exhibition/vote-voi...
But hey, feel free to continue arguing for policies which historically were only implemented to suppress minorities. I'm sure it'll all go well this time.
One big problem is that a good implementation/grading of "civics" test is so subjective that it could easily become a political-weapon to disenfranchise voters depending on who writes or grades the tests. Heck, you can already see it starting: The reason those politicians want to give free-pass to anyone over 25 is because their voting-base skews older, and they want any disenfranchisement to fall more-heavily against the other party. [0][1]
Similarly, "literacy tests" were horribly abused within US history, despite in theory being something that should be much easier to make a fair test for.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/20/t...
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voting-patte...
https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test this shows the kind of bullshit tests that would be created if Ramaswamy gets his way
We fought an entire war where that was one of a very long list of cited grievances, and even then it was about regional representation in the legislature, not broad franchise within the represented region.
However, poll tests have their own sordid history after that point in this country, and limiting them by age doesn’t change the fundamental problem that they had before, in that they have always been a method for government to fail a population and then disenfranchise them, justifying it on the basis of (the natural consequences of) that failure.