A test before being given the vote.

I don't agree, democracy works because any person can have their voice heard. If you prevent a certain group from expressing their opinion, you sow the seeds of social unrest.

What is more worrying, the ignorant/the extremists out in the open with the parties they support or them hidden in the lower layers of society, building up frustration and possibly becoming more dangerous?

Furthermore, you overestimate the capacity of the most intelligent/knowledgeable people to govern and to resist the corruption effects of power. Technocracy is a pipe dream that would probably lead to tyrrany, just like Communism did.
 
Faustus said:
But aren't we all supposedly better educated now? Surely with all the A+ or stars or whatever it is now there should be no excuse. In reality that's not the case. I sit on interview boards where the candidates have a string of paper qualifications but their lack of common sense has to be seen to be believed.
Click to expand...

So they should be disenfranchised? Is that it?
 
we should televise the election and get simon cowell to stage manage it. let everyone vote via their phones for who they want to run the country. perhaps have all the politicians do a quick song or dance routine before they announce their policies to us.


certainly would result in a better turn out :)
 
HangTime said:
No, not least because the test would likely have some form of inherent bias or other type of influence from the people who created it (i.e. subconsciously shaping it to pass people who conceptualise things in the same sort of way, even if they don't necessarily hold the same viewpoint).

The day we start trying to deny votes on the basis of 'lack of knowledge' will be a worrying day indeed.
Click to expand...

True enough and I don't see a way round it but there is a part of me that feels it's a bit unfortunate (if unavoidable) having people who haven't taken even basic steps to understand what is being asked of them making decisions that will affect others.

I certainly wouldn't want to see voting limited more than it is already though because as you say the limitations placed will tend to reflect biases from those setting the restrictions whether they mean to or not.

Mr. Pickle said:
The voting age should be increase to 25.
Click to expand...

We should disenfranchise more people exist in that state currently? Why 25 as a cut-off point? What would be the hoped for result of having someone unable to vote until that point?
 
Castiel said:
So they should be disenfranchised? Is that it?
Click to expand...

That wasn't what I alluded to.

I think it was reported on HIGNIFY on Friday that 38% of the public were not even aware there were elections on Thursday - given the amount of press coverage for weeks now where have these people been?

To add to this we have a press that is very much anti-europe especially the Murdoch press. They must spend hours looking for/inventing stories such as French poodle bites Brit, then it's down with the French etc.

We also have the spectre of both UKIP and a significant number of Tory MP's still playing at 'Little Englanders' thinking Britain is still great, we can go it alone and wishing the world map was still 'pink' (British Empire).

Europe has suffered two devasting wars in the last century due to petty tribalism. The idea behind the EU was to try and ensure it never happens again.

Given the above is it any wonder that the likes of UKIP are doing well in the polls. We need an honest debate and yes, people do need some 'unbiased' education when it comes to politics and world events.
 
The problem with this argument is that all to often what people mean when they say "too stupid to vote" is "too stupid to vote the same way as me". Of course many of the public are ignorant. So are many politicians and many of the posters in these forums. But it's a very bad reason to stop people voting. It's the nature of democracy that people will vote for silly things, but that's the price that you pay. The price that you pay for any other system is likely to be a lot worse.
 
Faustus said:
That wasn't what I alluded to.

I think it was reported on HIGNIFY on Friday that 38% of the public were not even aware there were elections on Thursday - given the amount of press coverage for weeks now where have these people been?

To add to this we have a press that is very much anti-europe especially the Murdoch press. They must spend hours looking for/inventing stories such as French poodle bites Brit, then it's down with the French etc.

We also have the spectre of both UKIP and a significant number of Tory MP's still playing at 'Little Englanders' thinking Britain is still great, we can go it alone and wishing the world map was still 'pink' (British Empire).

Europe has suffered two devasting wars in the last century due to petty tribalism. The idea behind the EU was to try and ensure it never happens again.

Given the above is it any wonder that the likes of UKIP are doing well in the polls. We need an honest debate and yes, people do need some 'unbiased' education when it comes to politics and world events.
Click to expand...

You said in your OP people should be given a bank of tests before being allowed to vote, not that the system should engage and inform the public better. I agree with the latter, but your proposition only disenfranchises people, it doesn't address the issues you have just introduced above.

Perhaps you need to decide what you actually want to say prior to actually saying it.
 
Would the test be:
  1. Send 'em all back?
  2. Send some of 'em back?
  3. Send back the ones scrounging benefits?
  4. Send back the ones stealing our jerbs?
  5. Let 'em all in?
 
I thought the Illuminati actually ran the country anyway and the voting system was just a method to deceive the sheeple that they have some control over their own future. :eek:
 
I 100% agree with this

marktwain.jpg
 
Try telling that to an angry mob of the thick armed with torches and pitchforks and dim ideas about what to do with them in relation to your body!
 
HangTime said:
No, not least because the test would likely have some form of inherent bias or other type of influence from the people who created it (i.e. subconsciously shaping it to pass people who conceptualise things in the same sort of way, even if they don't necessarily hold the same viewpoint).

The day we start trying to deny votes on the basis of 'lack of knowledge' will be a worrying day indeed.
Click to expand...
I agree with the sentiment, but really what's worse?.

Having a population vote against their own interests due to being misinformed & uninformed (via media manipulation) or having a section of society not bother due to not being interested enough to learn the fundamental's?.

An intelligence test would be undemocratic I agree, but people being utterly unaware of what they are voting for is hugely damaging also.

Personally I don't believe in democracy for a host of reasons so thankfully I don't have to pick a side for this one (both seem terrible for different reasons).
 
Dimple said:
I 100% agree with this

marktwain.jpg
Click to expand...

He didn't say it. This is from one of his books though;
"The citizen who thinks he sees that the commonwealth's political clothes are worn out, and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal, he is a traitor."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom