Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

A petition to make voters to pass a test before they do anything stupid. Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    All British citizens have a right to vote- not just those who are 'clever'.
    The problem is those who think they are clever are not as clever as they think.

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Any place is fine to ask..
    Well I can't give a comparison between them naturally but the maths course has been very good so far and fun. I've enjoyed my time in societies and living on campus is alright. Probably inferior night life to other places if that's your thing but there certainly still is one.
    OMG no night life, that's the reason why I rejected IC, how's the workload, e.g. the average time spend on each subject everynight?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cogito.)
    To avoid confusion, this will be an example of the questions:
    Q: What is the cube of 9?
    Q: When did WW2 end?
    Q: All B is A, if C is not A, will C be B?
    etc, etc...
    will the Grade Boundaries be lower this year ? :holmes:

    :bear::heart:C be B:heart::bear:

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cogito.)
    OMG no night life, that's the reason why I rejected IC, how's the workload, e.g. the average time spend on each subject everynight?
    depends on a lot tbh. First year is going to be easier than the next but I probably had to do at least a couple of hours each night (obviously there's also the matter of going to lectures/supervisions/classes and paying attention..I believe I had little over 20 hours per week of that kind of thing) on average but generally it was more sporadic, usually doing a fair bit of work (maybe 7 hours a day or so sometimes, definitely less when there's less assignments due) on the weekends or just generally when assignments are in (for me everything was just dictated by whether there were assignments in or not).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Definitely, most of my friends found Q2 and 3 hard, fk voting committee once again, it will be 20% for a pass, not higher plssssssss


    (Original post by the bear)
    will the Grade Boundaries be lower this year ? :holmes:

    :bear::heart:C be B:heart::bear:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by welshiee)
    The problem is those who think they are clever are not as clever as they think.

    b-b-but all Leavers are uneducated northern plebs who MUST be racist and listened to lies!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    depends on a lot tbh. First year is going to be easier than the next but I probably had to do at least a couple of hours each night (obviously there's also the matter of going to lectures/supervisions/classes and paying attention..I believe I had little over 20 hours per week of that kind of thing) on average but generally it was more sporadic, usually doing a fair bit of work (maybe 7 hours a day or so sometimes, definitely less when there's less assignments due) on the weekends or just generally when assignments are in (for me everything was just dictated by whether there were assignments in or not).
    Well, that's Warwick then, probably because I do not like central London, can't wait for my STEP results. BTW, is 1,1,2 a good chance for Warwick? (I have B/A prediction in Chemistry)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cogito.)
    Well, that's Warwick then, probably because I do not like central London, can't wait for my STEP results. BTW, is 1,1,2 a good chance for Warwick?
    I avoided Imperial due to a dislike of London also.. well yes, but A level results are very important to them also. Once you have a 1 in any STEP they don't really care about how much you exceed that, could get SSS but if you got A*BB they might not let you in.. probably because they give out so many offers and have to accept everyone who makes it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Would I pass?

    I think my views on economics might get me barred.

    It is way to easy to abuse and it would be a bad precedent to set.
    Read up one from this quote of yours to see my response
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Popcorns)
    Read up one from this quote of yours to see my response
    "I definitely do not think that we should stop people voting because they have limited education but a better way of dealing with it would be to test them in the least biased way possible on the issues surrounding a particular election/referendum then if they fail the test... teach them until they have the knowledge they need to make informed and not rash/angry/uneducated decisions."

    It sounds good in theory but someone has to make that test. Who is going to make it? The government? The knowledge class? Do these groups know everything. It is also possible to have an educated position that disagrees with the mainstream academia of a subject. Economics is a good example of this. You may be educated on the subject but fundamentally disagree with some key ideas that you have to "accept" in order to pass the test.

    Also what about laziness. People don't vote as it is, never mind havign to take a test. Although that might be a good way of weeding out the idiots

    I can see how it could be a good thing if we could somehow get some totally impartial entity to construct the test in an objective and impartial way as possible. But even people who as professionals sincerely aim to be objective still don't manage. That is before even considering how the test makers deliberately design it in such a way for a given politician interest. Considering how the word works that is very likely...

    Also what is to stop people just cynically passing it and then voting on an "uneducated" position because they don't believe the "lies" of the experts?

    I's say good in theory but potentially very bad in practise. But then so is the current set up where there a load of nodes in society that just push their own prejudices and manipulate the public. Which are then given a vote. I'd support your idea if you could prove it would be less bad than how it currently is


    Put the robots in charge.

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    "I definitely do not think that we should stop people voting because they have limited education but a better way of dealing with it would be to test them in the least biased way possible on the issues surrounding a particular election/referendum then if they fail the test... teach them until they have the knowledge they need to make informed and not rash/angry/uneducated decisions."

    It sounds good in theory but someone has to make that test. Who is going to make it? The government? The knowledge class? Do these groups know everything. It is also possible to have an educated position that disagrees with the mainstream academia of a subject. Economics is a good example of this. You may be educated on the subject but fundamentally disagree with some key ideas that you have to "accept" in order to pass the test.

    Also what about laziness. People don't vote as it is, never mind havign to take a test. Although that might be a good way of weeding out the idiots

    I can see how it could be a good thing if we could somehow get some totally impartial entity to construct the test in an objective and impartial way as possible. But even people who as professionals sincerely aim to be objective still don't manage. That is before even considering how the test makers deliberately design it in such a way for a given politician interest. Considering how the word works that is very likely...

    Also what is to stop people just cynically passing it and then voting on an "uneducated" position because they don't believe the "lies" of the experts?

    I's say good in theory but potentially very bad in practise. But then so is the current set up where there a load of nodes in society that just push their own prejudices and manipulate the public. Which are then given a vote. I'd support your idea if you could prove it would be less bad than how it currently is


    Put the robots in charge.
    We have enforcement for 'worse' laws than take a test to see if you have a decent level of understanding of what you are voting on (and we'll teach you if you can't pass).
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcobruni98)
    I see your point... However the problem with these things is that the needs of the most uneducated and lower class people will not be presented and it is therefore a form of neglect ion towards those people. They must be represented in some way. That's why the referendum was a bad idea in general, Cameron was selfish and now we are suffering the consequences .
    what about having the test a few months in advance and if they fail it then spend the rest of the montsh educating them on the pros and cons of each of the sides they are voting for ?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katiemariefryer)
    Why should your ability to vote be based on IQ? That's terrible. That is saying that only smart people have a say in their own country. There is more to a person than their IQ level. There's courage, bravery, kindness, just to name a few. People cannot be judged by their ability to do a math question when it comes to deciding the future of their country, what they need is real solid information about the choices they are making and unfortunately in this country the media destroys all facts and evidence by reporting only half a story and reporting only what they want to report and half arsed politicians give figures and facts that fit their own agenda.

    Example
    People were told that 350million was spent on the EU each week.
    What they weren't told (initially) is that we get half of that back in a rebate.

    People were told we would need visas to visit (go on holiday) in european countries.
    What they weren't told is countries like Germany have a no visa policy for most countries (for holidays), and many countries are like this when it comes to travel.


    You could argue with anyone with a decent IQ would look up these facts for themselves. But then why shouldn't people have faith in their politicians? The problem lies with them and the media, not their IQ.
    The media is always going to lie. People have an individual responsibility to check their facts. It's not even difficult, everyone has internet access now. There's no excuse. Generally, more intelligent people are going to be able to understand when they don't know something (instead of somehow coming to the conclusion that the experts are wrong and they're right), and they're going to be sceptical of the media instead of believing everything they read.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    The media is always going to lie. People have an individual responsibility to check their facts. It's not even difficult, everyone has internet access now. There's no excuse. Generally, more intelligent people are going to be able to understand when they don't know something (instead of somehow coming to the conclusion that the experts are wrong and they're right), and they're going to be sceptical of the media instead of believing everything they read.
    Ok, your right, i'll give up on defending people that are clearly to dumb to vote.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katiemariefryer)
    Ok, your right, i'll give up on defending people that are clearly to dumb to vote.
    Whaaaaaaaaaat? Ironically I just switched side


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It wasn't in reply to you cogito. I'm just fed up of trying to defend people that are being wronged. There is so much more to people than just IQ.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What has cubed got to do with politics.....
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cogito.)
    To avoid confusion, this will be an example of the questions:
    Q: What is the cube of 9?
    Q: When did WW2 end?
    Q: All B is A, if C is not A, will C be B?
    etc, etc...





    I’ve made a petition – will you sign it?

    Click this link to sign the petition:
    https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...DVx6EkbbRUo0ZB

    My petition:

    Make it compulsory for an exam consisting logic and math for registering tovote

    In the general lines of the conception of democracy, British philosopherMill proposed that votes should be valued according to the standards ofeducation of citizens.

    Who is J.S.Mill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_MillOutline of this idea comes from: http://resourcelists.stir.ac.uk/item...3BE2E7301.html
    ��E�dC�

    I have always thought that everyone should take a test about every parties' manifesto and about different political ideologies before they are allowed to vote. Why would you let someone who has no idea what they are voting for decide on the fate of a country? You dont just give people the right to do whatever they want. You have to pass A-levels to get into university, you have to pass tests to become a doctor, you have to pass a probationary period and an interview if you want to get a job etc. But suddenly, when its about deciding about the fate of a country, every retard is allowed to vote even if they cant add and subtract.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lolakirk)
    I have always thought that everyone should take a test about every parties' manifesto and about different political ideologies before they are allowed to vote. Why would you let someone who has no idea what they are voting for decide on the fate of a country? You dont just give people the right to do whatever they want. You have to pass A-levels to get into university, you have to pass tests to become a doctor, you have to pass a probationary period and an interview if you want to get a job etc. But suddenly, when its about deciding about the fate of a country, every retard is allowed to vote even if they cant add and subtract.
    The reason I switched side because I looked back at statistics, a elite society doesn't work, only have max. 20% population cannot maintain a stable society, what should you do to the rest? If you look at the GCSE pass rate i.e. D and above, is about only 47%
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cogito.)
    The reason I switched side because I looked back at statistics, a elite society doesn't work, only have max. 20% population cannot maintain a stable society, what should you do to the rest? If you look at the GCSE pass rate i.e. D and above, is about only 47%
    So having to take a test which confirms you know what you are voting for is a sign of elitism now... Ok.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.