Of course, those tests shouldn't be that ambiguous, but if they were phrased a bit more clear, these would be very simple. At the same time, English has changed in the last 50 years. That phrasing might have been common back then.
You can get 0 answers wrong and there would still be a way of throwing away your vote. Take question 11 - cross out the number necessary when making the number below 1 million. Do you cross out the excess 000s or do you cross out 1,000,000. Or do you cross out enough numbers to make the number below 1 million? The answer is it doesn't matter because (a) by giving you a multiple viable chance they've already managed to disenfranchise a percentage of the people they're targetting, and (b) whatever you do they can just claim the opposite interpretation and refuse you a right to vote.
There wasn't some high minded idealism behind this test. It was a tool for the people administering the election to select who they wanted to allow to vote. Any test you design will serve the same purpose, albeit some more efficiently than others.
Yes. The point of literacy and competency testing is obviously exclusionary.
The fact that literacy and competency testing were misused in the past is no excuse to allow illiterates and incompetents to determine the course of our civilization.
I'm glad we both agree that more money should abundantly be allotted to education budgets, and making higher quality education more accessible — without discrimination — to the masses.
I do view the literacy and competency tests as a tool that should be pointing in the other direction: at all elected and non-elected officials; exhibit A, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology of 2014 [0] (relevant timestamp: 02:47).