A test before being given the vote.

[ElliorR]

I did have a test before I voted last Thursday, a bloody reading test as the amount if candidates on the damn long ballot paper had me asking to use the toilet to read it whilst relieving myself. Better than a newspaper for my morning constitutional.

 

[Spektor]

Democracy reflects the society you deserve. You can't remove peoples rights because you think they might vote for someone you don't like. If you think it's a result of ignorance leading people to the current voting climate then that isn't the fault of UKIP's existence, the fault of the media's coverage of them or the fault of the voter being motivated by rhetoric they don't understand - it's all too late by this stage; the problem begins with education and education is how it would be fixed.

 

[Lightnix]

goes both ways and is why UKIP are getting so many votes.

voting doesn't need to change, the big parties do

Well, that's part of my vision here.

Parties don't have to change if the average person doesn't actually know what the parties really stand for.

So the test would basically be about making people conscientious about their knowledge of what the parties think. That is, it would test based off their respective manifestos. The person then learns that either: A: they have a reasonable understanding of the parties' policies before voting or B: they don't and have the option to brush up on it before voting if they are so conscientious (or they can go ahead and vote anyway).

Now, You say the big parties need to change, but assuming the "average" voter doesn't actually appreciate what the parties really stand for then they have no incentive to (otherwise it's "we want change, but we don't know what!"). The trick here is that we would be trying to encourage people to learn what the parties say they want, and if they think that's not good enough, then hopefully there is suddenly a truly informed platform for change.

It could also bring some interesting statistics in regards to, for instance, what percentage of voters were considered "well informed" for a given election.

 

[arknor]

manifestos aren't worth the paper they are written on

 

[Lightnix]

manifestos aren't worth the paper they are written on

Good thing you can usually get them as a PDF.

Edit: To be more constructive, I think knowing what a party thinks it can get away with claiming on a platform that is basically completely biased towards them is extremely valuable. Also sometimes, hilarious. The BNP had a pretty good one in 2010. They were talking about building mag-lev railways and somehow kicking brown people out of the country was going to fund that.

 

[arknor]

Good thing you can usually get them as a PDF.

Has a party ever lived up to a manifesto during your life time?

 

[Lightnix]

Has a party ever lived up to a manifesto during your life time?

To repeat my edit: I don't really think that's the point. It's more about knowing what the parties: A: advocate. B: think they can get away with claiming on a platform that is totally biased towards themselves. I don't think that lacks value at all.

 

[Spook187]

I am often staggered by the public's responses when asked political questions on the news.

You could argue that the MP's who give us pathetic political answers are no worse, politics in this county is broken with greed and lies.

 

[arknor]

To repeat my edit: I don't really think that's the point. It's more about knowing what the parties: A: advocate. B: think they can get away with claiming on a platform that is totally biased towards themselves. I don't think that lacks value at all.

but knowing a parties manifesto before voting means nothing when they are full of empty promises with no accountability.
It doesn't suddenly make it an educated vote.

as spooks said, politics is broken.

we should have these people hooked up to lie detectors ^_^ if only to see them sweat for once.

 

[Mr. Pickle]

The voting age should be increase to 25.

 

[arknor]

The voting age should be increase to 25.

21 and politics should be a mandatory lesson in schools instead of RE

 

[Mynight]

I agree that politics should be mandatory. Even as far as replacing RE.

I'm not sure about a test for eligibility to vote but I believe some minorities shouldn't be allowed to vote (ie the prison population).

 

[StriderX]

Almost 2/3rds of the country dont even bother and you are afraid of people who say things on the news?

The better thing would be to not have such disillusionment in the UK, but i doubt this will ever change unless we do something the entire system.

 

[HardwareGeek]

Maybe voting should be mandatory and a quick 10? question multiple choice test before voting and if you fail to get say 80% then you are required to watch a short video explaining the basics of the system and the parties views and then shown or made to study a comparison chart of the parties positions on the main issues.


On another note is there a site that tracks the historical record of all the parties where you can look up the stats of if they fulfilled their manifesto promises and any other announced policies etc

so you could see for example party x has a 20% vs. party y's 40% believability score?



Also is there a site that tracks with hindsight which party or policy would have been the best course of action in hindsight?

so you could see an analysis of if for example the uk followed labour policies through the recession vs. conservative etc - this maybe almost impossible to calculate for this example but you get the idea

 

[LeeUK]

What's that box behind that Sky dish?.. COUNCIL HOUSE!

 

[Lightnix]

but knowing a parties manifesto before voting means nothing when they are full of empty promises with no accountability.
It doesn't suddenly make it an educated vote.

as spooks said, politics is broken.

we should have these people hooked up to lie detectors ^_^ if only to see them sweat for once.

It means something because it contains the most basic information about the what the parties are advocating. If voters don't know what the parties are advocating, then on what basis are they voting exactly?

 

[arknor]

they will tell you anything to get elected and you know it.
the only thing we can judge them on is their history which hardly gives them a glowing report

 

[Lightnix]

The history of politics is relevant, yes, but sources of historical events tend to be biased somewhat, too. It's also the case that parties do tend to act differently in the face of historical context. Take Labour in the 60s and in the 90s. Basically different entities all together. I'm not talking about a full and complete understanding of politics, just a basic awareness of what the parties at least want you to think they stand for. If you do read them, it's not like all the parties are saying exactly the same things so they do provide some basis for differentiation if nothing else.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Having any kind of "test" completely undermines the freedom and right to vote. So, no.

 

[Beren]

Maybe voting should be mandatory and a quick 10? question multiple choice test before voting and if you fail to get say 80% then you are required to watch a short video explaining the basics of the system and the parties views and then shown or made to study a comparison chart of the parties positions on the main issues.

Actually what could be cool is if you had a short multiple choice questionnaire which was made up of the political standpoints of each candidate.

You tick the box you think is best and whoever's views you side with most is where your vote is cast.

You could also poll the public before an election to find out what they care about and make those the questions that politicians have to answer in one sentence which then forms the ballot paper... Would maybe take 15 minutes to vote but you would know that you definitely voted for someone who represents the majority of your views...

Sorry really sideways thought.