Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
Exactly. But it's emblematic of why you can't stump him like that. It's not just because most people don't know how we deliver nukes. I don't remember exactly what he said but IIRC it was just self-promotion ("I'll handle it great") and trite truisms and populist jargon that are actual valid words and phrases but mean nothing in context ("nuclear is dangerous, that's the whole game!") and then literally just gave up and said the devastation was the most important thing to him (???). It's not just that people don't know about how we shoot nuclear missiles off but it's also that any question which allows for subjectivity and doesn't have a singular correct answer can simply be babbled through with some trite nonsense and the interviewer is not going to be equipped to combat it without violating standards and unwritten rules about editorializing ("lolol wtf, you're a moron?!") like ATC noted.
So here is one last idea for using a test to help alleviate these problems. Instead of one that disqualifies the dumb, the gullible or the uneducated, what about one that identifies the opposite? Say the top 5% or so. Then do something like this:
Count everyone's vote equally at first. But note how the top 5 percenters break. But that second number only becomes relevant in close elections. Perhaps 52-48 types. When that happens check to see how the top 5 percenters voted. If they broke significantly the other way, say 55-45 or more, the other guy wins or perhaps alternatively there is a do over a month later.
Something along these lines would be more acceptable to the man in the street than a test that disqualifies incompetants for two reasons.
1. There is much less stigma on not making the top 5% than being disqualified to vote.
2. The smarties cannot nullify an election that isn't close.
Such a scheme would at least sometimes prevent results that I believe are more and more likely to occur if nothing is done to prevent experts in voter manipulation to take over.