It would have to be worded carefully, e.g "what does THINK_TANK believe will happen to the economy under Trumps tax plan" (as opposed to "what is likely to happen under Trumps tax plan", so there would be no political disagreements) and it would of course have to be applied equally to everybody (no grandfathering).
But the question I am really asking is, would it be so bad if the number of eligitable voters were smaller, but they were more informed?
1. If it's the ruling party, then there's no way they would write unbiased questions.
2. If it's the opposition party, then there's no way they would write unbiased questions.
3. If it's a combination of the two, then no questions would get written in time.
4. If it's a third party, then who vets/selects them, and who can be a part of it? GOTO 1
> But the question I am really asking is, would it be so bad if the number of eligitable voters were smaller, but they were more informed?
That's incredibly dangerous. Who decides who is 'informed' and not? I bet most (all?) voters think they are informed.
Each question would be assigned some score, and you would need a certain minimum to pass.
As long as everybody is given the same test, and that the questions are objective, the same determination would be made for everybody, no matter what their political leanings were, so in a sense whatever knowledge you require your opponents to know, you would also your side to know.
Even if it is so blatantly biased that every single question is a positive statement about Hillary (say), wouldn't you want somebody voting against her to do so on an informed basis, and so as a minimum they should know her platforms/positions?
You're giving people too much credit. When showed the controversial comparison photos of Obama's and Trump's inauguration crowds and asked which photo depicted a larger crowd, some Trump supporters indicated the Trump inauguration simply because they recognized the controversy and refused to give any credence to the perceived insult, even going so far as to give an obviously false answer on an ostensibly objective poll.
Democracy is a political system. You can have a democracy coexist with as many "echo chambers" as you please. (In fact, in a healthy democracy, you would have "echo chambers"). The reality is that "echo chambers" created the conditions that allowed Trump to be elected. But, he was ELECTED. The democratic process worked fine.
What I'm trying to, gently, point out, is that "echo chambers" not giving you the democratic results you want, is not the same as "echo chambers" being an "enemy" of democracy. Everyone can say whatever they please. Everyone can listen to, or indeed, ignore, whatever they please. Simultaneously, along a completely different and orthogonal axis, everyone can vote however they please. Now obviously in such an environment, if there really is complete freedom of choice and freedom of association, "echo chambers" will develop. This doesn't show a lack of freedom, rather it shows an abundance of freedom. Any person is free to position themselves wherever they please in the space defined by that democratic environment.
Freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom of association etc, these are some of the most important features of a democracy. So "echo chambers" don't represent a threat to democracy. Quite the contrary, their existence actually indicates the presence of healthy environment in terms of democratic freedoms.
Now of course people won't like this, because it allows the ill informed to remain ill informed as long as they choose. But that goes back to freedoms. As horrible as this is going to sound, it's the democratic right of the ill informed, to remain ill informed.