41

Just like 16 years old people can't vote because too young, 80+ years old people should not be able to vote, most of them are too distant from everyday reality of younger people to be able to take a wise decision for the community and also often stick with (way too) old ideals from their years

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

A competency test is just the start of the end of a democracy tbh, it means that someone can influence political decisions by making a specific political idea "incompetent"

Both age and competency limitations are very stupid ideas

[-] wraekscadu@vargar.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

A competency test is just the start of the end of a democracy tbh,

Not inherently

someone can influence political decisions by making a specific political idea "incompetent"

Correct, which is the biggest issue and why it's very dangerous to implement in practice.

That being said, there is nothing inherently wrong with competency tests. We have competency tests for driving, practicing medicine, law and so on. Why? Because we don't want incompetent individuals with the power to cause a lot of damage.

Through voting, millions can be stripped off health coverage. Wars can be started. The power to vote can create or destroy entire civilizations.

A basic competency test for:

  • ensuring that the voter understands the structure of governance
  • can identify logical fallacies
  • can identify cognitive biases

would help reduce the probability of disaster imo.

The question of "the test setter can act in bad faith" can be remedied through independent sortition based committees requiring a supermajority approval for the test. I mean I can't see how designing such a structure in theory could be that difficult.

this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2026
41 points (73.6% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

9436 readers
555 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.


6. Defend your opinion


This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS