Pretty sure it's like that in every country. Everyone will always sit on an empty bench instead of sitting next to someone, but when all the benches are full, we just have to make do.

Or Turbo Kid.

Yeah, those happened because people wanted a change from the extreme left, so they went extreme right. I don't agree with the move but I can understand the reason behind it.
My primary concern is to stop people from deciding things they're totally uninformed about, and to stop politicians from exploiting these people. So maybe I've been going about it the wrong way and only better education is the way to go. But we can both agree that money in politics and pre-elections propaganda do more harm than good, right?

I'd also like to add that even with an originally democratic government things can turn into a dictatorship without any "controversial" proposals like mine is. Look at Erdogan, he keeps switching all the power to different political positions, depending which one he's in.

... Which is why the system I "designed" would be 100% anonymous and therefore as unbiased as can be. The problem is, any idea can get exploited. I think you're exaggerating with the mass graves and so on, but it might happen, after all Nietzsche's superhuman concept was meant as a moral betterment of humanity but it was turned into racism and later genocide by the Nazis. So yes, anything can happen, but I still think that you should decide for others only when you know what you're doing. Or, if you're against testing and ignoring some percentage of votes which may to a lot of people seem like totalitarianism, I'd propose either political education courses for voters (which may have some issues as the originally unbiased courses might turn into propaganda), or limits to what politicians can spend on their campaigns, because the problem isn't uneducated people, the problem is politicians exploiting and swaying uneducated people on their side. Basically, get the money out of politics.

It's funny because people from Eastern Europe hardly enjoy the idea of non-democracy since they were enslaved by communism, so your idea of them being anti-democracy is off.
Anyway, personally I'm 100% for freedom. I think it's more important than security because if you put security above freedom, you're gonna get controlled. But I feel like this case is something different - you keep saying how my idea is fascist and dictator-like and so on. And I understand how you can think that. But the thing is, freedom is perfect as long as you decide for yourself. And we have that now, and it's good. But as long as you're deciding for an entire country while knowing nothing about what your decisions even mean, we might have a bit of a problem...

Central.

...or (and this is more likely as a couple of professor can't simply grade an entire nation's test) the tests would be made up by these professors, the right answers would be agreed upon (again by many of them to get rid of bias) and then graded via computer, so they'd have to be just multiple choice type of questions. Which professors would be making the tests would not be known to the political parties' members or to the public, and they would change every elections. Each university professor would be registered into a database in which they'd also record whether they're right or left leaning, and a computer would choose which professors would be making the test by a random choice, but consisting of 50% left and 50% right wing leaning professors.
Whew, that was tiring but this is my idea nonetheless. Any questions?

Not a native speaker but I talked to enough native speakers to know that they use stupid as uneducated quite commonly. I don't know where you're from or if you're even a native speaker at all but I got this from experience.
Not fascism, meritocracy. What's wrong with the idea that only people who know what a certain field is about should be able to decide within that field? Nowadays you need a certificate for everything, like doing a certain job, driving, or even speaking a language ffs! But you don't need any proof of political knowledge to decide your country's future?
Now, I shall explain. The tests would be completely anonymous, every participant would have an assigned number not even they would know. It'd be assigned to their national identification number. The tests would either be graded by the country's college politology professors from multiple universities, which should eliminate most of the natural bias, or...

Test on political *knowledge* = education, not intelligence. I didn't confuse IQ with education, you did. And just because I used stupid doesn't strictly mean I was talking about IQ, stupid is interchangeable with uneducated in common parlance.
I already said not every garbageman is dumb/uneducated, I thought people would also realize that I meant an alternative applies as well, meaning I think not every CEO is smart/educated. And yes, the test might weed these people out. Because the purpose of the test is to weed out people who don't know anything about politics. You may be a rocket scientist but know absolutely nothing about politics, therefore you shouldn't decide on politics. Simple. I don't know how to stress this out more but in my original comment I wrote KNOWLEDGE, so you telling me how my "IQ test" wouldn't work only proves you misread/misunderstood it and I'll gladly find common grounds with you once you understand that.

Ikr, should have been the other way around.

Winry's the best.

@yukihaki As I said, I was just giving examples that were based off statistics on education as a job requirement. But okay, we got that solved and agreed upon.
@smitty Now now, I never said these jobs don't require skill. They certainly do. But they don't require higher education. That's why plumbers, truck drivers, construction workers and what not obviously need training to know what they're doing, but their job mostly relies on manual labour, therefore they don't really need to know anything else beyond their line of work. I acknowledge that they need some training and even certificates to do their job, but a two months long training is a whole different thing than years of university education.

Sure, sure, you're nitpicking right now. But why do you have a problem with me putting McDonalds employees and plumbers as examples of uneducated people? I know they're not all stupid, in fact two of my high school classmates work there to earn some extra money while in college, but apart from students, you will hardly find an ambitious, intelligent person there. And as to what concerns plumbers, construction workers and other manual labor workers, those are jobs you don't need higher education for, therefore it's more likely to find uneducated people there. It's statistics and facts, what's wrong with that? People who need a bachelor degree for their job will obviously be statistically smarter and more educated than people who don't, that's a (trigger warning) fact.

What are YOU talking about? I proposed a standardized, anonymously graded system of testing people's knowledge in order to vote and you say it wouldn't work because I'm discriminating against smart garbagemen? SJW logic...