A license to breed should also be enforced. And you have to take a parenting and IQ test. The IQ test is like the driving theory and the parenting test is like the actual driving test. So you have to do things like not drop baby on it's head. Anyone taking hundreds of pictures of test baby and uploading them to Facebook should instantly fail and be banned from breeding ever.
A test before being given the vote.
- Thread starter Faustus
- Start date
I did not say that people should be given a bank of tests before being allowed to vote - I asked the question 'should they' thus inviting comment. Please quote me correctly.
My answer to the above would be an emphatic NO NO NO! Multiple choice questions destroy good quality education and learning. Do things for yourself i.e. learn, absorb, think, then decide.
Soldato
No
Tests would/could be skewed to penalise certain groups and goes against the whole principle. As long as you are over 18 and of sound mind and not currently in jail you should be free to vote, curtailing peoples right to vote is abhorrent.
Semantics. You asked a specific question with an addendum in the OP which implies a validation of the question as a proposition. If you simply wanted a discussion on the question of increasing knowledge and political awareness then why not ask that question rather than the proposition you did ask.
In any case, the answer to your question remains No, for the reasons I gave...if you are not invested in the proposition in the OP then may I ask why you are attempting to defend it?
Last edited:
Soldato
yes it is alarmist stop believing all the bs !
Perhaps a brief test regarding the basic policies of the main parties? That way you don't exclude anyone other than those who don't have much or any knowledge of the parties we are voting for. If you fail you just have to re-take it until you pass, or those who fail can be talked through the answers. It could work without excluding anyone really.
Failing that, simply more encouragement to learn a little more about the main parties before committing to vote. I think it's quite common for people to stand by a party they think is best for them, where as they have no idea what the policies are of their opposition.
Failing that, simply more encouragement to learn a little more about the main parties before committing to vote. I think it's quite common for people to stand by a party they think is best for them, where as they have no idea what the policies are of their opposition.
Last edited:
Define sound mind? I also did not advocate curtailing peoples right to vote. I asked the question should they first have to sit an educational competency test.
PhD level or GTFO tbh.
I think Neville Chamberlain said something along those lines too. How did that end?
The information is out there, all you have to do is let it in. Don't listen to what others say or what you are told as being gospel, find things out for yourself. My father taught me that as a young boy and that is what I have done the rest of my life.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I still believe in those words though whoever said it.
Semantics nothing - I asked a question. The premise being concern over the apparent lack of knowledge of all things political in the wider population. As people are asked to cast their vote for a political appointee surely a proper knowledge of the subject should be a given?
I offered a possible solution i.e. some form of political tests before casting a vote. Others have said inclusion in the curriculum. Whilst I think that may be a good thing what do we do about all those past full time education?
Exactly, you offered a solution to the question (i.e a proposition). Which is what I said originally.
Thanks for validating my point.
Soldato
A test before being given the vote? Perhaps giving out yellow stars to those that fail, ready for the culling?
Elitist drivel.
The views of the so called 'less intelligent and ignorant' might not be in agreement with yours, but they can't be ignored or left unaddressed. To do so would be folly. The main parties are now being shown this, but whether they are capable of changing their 'We know best' Islington mind set is another thing altogether. I'm not hopeful.
Elitist drivel.
The views of the so called 'less intelligent and ignorant' might not be in agreement with yours, but they can't be ignored or left unaddressed. To do so would be folly. The main parties are now being shown this, but whether they are capable of changing their 'We know best' Islington mind set is another thing altogether. I'm not hopeful.
Soldato
Problem is though that Labour would never get in again.
Hang on, that's not a problem.
Yep, good idea!
Hang on, that's not a problem.
Yep, good idea!
Because an intelligent persons vote has more validity because
If you were to have a test (which I completely disagree with fyi) then surely this test should be a moral test rather than an intelligence one?
Plenty of intelligent sociopaths vote for selfish and greedy reasons that only benefits themselves rather than society in general!
I'd rather they lost the vote than an empathetic, caring, selfless and compassionate individual who isn't text-book
intelligent !No, lower the voting age to 16 and make it compulsory to vote, but include a box that says 'none of the above', i.e. you can still not vote, but it must be because of action rather than inaction.
If you're not ticked off a list that says you went to the polling station (or postal vote counted) then you get a £100 fine.
Lowering the voting age will increase awareness and involvement into kids and will carry it through into their adult life.
If your 17 364 days old at a general election date you could be 22 before you're eligible to vote.
Lower term length to 3 years, this would stop political parties from being untruthful in election run up as there would be a higher turnover of MPs if they did turn out to be no good. A 3 year cycle would better represent the cultural moods and shifts of the population.
If you're not ticked off a list that says you went to the polling station (or postal vote counted) then you get a £100 fine.
Lowering the voting age will increase awareness and involvement into kids and will carry it through into their adult life.
If your 17 364 days old at a general election date you could be 22 before you're eligible to vote.
Lower term length to 3 years, this would stop political parties from being untruthful in election run up as there would be a higher turnover of MPs if they did turn out to be no good. A 3 year cycle would better represent the cultural moods and shifts of the population.
Last edited: