Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    You are removing the stability that underides our democratic system.
    Questionable. I personally don't think democratic stablity depends on people being alowed to hold emotive unqualified opinions. Conversely I believe there will be more democracy if everyone was well informed. And if the system is less stable when real democracy is introduced then that will be ok too because it will mean that the parties will have to be more responsive to the needs of the nation (as oposed to pressure groups because safe seats will be removed) and there may be more choice for the voter.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    You are seeking to rewrite eligiblity for voting to not only those who are 18+ but by interlect as well.
    Lets think about the principles behind under 18s not being able to vote. Is it not because they are generally thought to be less well informed? Well the test intends to identify over 18s who are less well informed. Why should under 18s be discriminated against because they are less well informed whilst ignorant over 18s may vote? Is that not ageist? So why do we not extend the principle that all the ignorant may not vote?

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    I am fundamentally against this. What is to say that the next gov. wont increase the standard required to take the test so we end up with a situation similar to the one in the early 19th century?
    Is this not an appeal to indirect consequences? With proper safeguards this need not happen.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    What is so wrong with our current system that we need to change it?
    Please see my first post

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    And altho i agree that people should be exposed to several sources of infomation I do not think this is the way to do it, having groups like the BBC is far better.
    Realistically, not everyone who votes watches the BBC. And anyway the impartiallity of the BBC is questionable.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    and tyranny of the majority? what is that?
    Basically the suppession of minority interests by the majority.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    and could you provide an example of an emotive issue?
    Criminal justice system, death penalty, asylum seekers etc

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    human rights and freedoms? you are taking these away with this system, people will not be able to express their views if they want too
    Their views or the biased views of the Mail? The system I am proposing aims to ensure that people are able to see all the sides of a poitical debate and therefore form opions of their own (as opposed to being brainwashed) which they will then be able to express in their voting when the pass the test.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mineko)
    If the test were set at a level which was attainable by most of the population (such as GCSE level) and evening classes (with expenses, childcare etc were paid for) were provided to enable as many people as possible to pass then anyone with a serious interest in democracy who might feel slighted by not automatically having the knowledge to pass would still be able to vote.

    Having expenses etc paid would enable the poorer largely under-educated section of society to have a better understanding of policics and may even inspire them to become more politically active.
    I think you misunderstand the crux of my argument. Excluding the issue of abuse - which is an important one and one you should consider strongly as another poster put it, once the principle of qualifications is established whats to stop its extension? I am suggesting that imposing a voting qualification such as the one you suggest would LOWER turnout, since a 'band' of people - hardly a unified group admittedly - who currently vote - some perhaps on the 'emotive' basis you orginally cited - would decide that they cannot be arsed with the lessons and the tests and decide not to vote. I know this is a guess, but my guess would be that this group would be predominately from the lower socio-economic groups - since research evidence suggests the higher the socio-economic group the greater the interest in politics.

    As a result Politicians would inevitably aim more policies at the remaining 'educated elite' (due to the self interest argument I outlined earlier and you have not challenged), and this would lead to more policies being aimed at this 'elite' disproportionately of the higher socio-economic groups. This in my view would be UNFAIR AND UNJUST although of course you may argue that is not the point since its self-inflicted, I think it is the point.

    Indeed, the fact that politicians today aim so many policies at the middle class is a product of the fact that they vote in vastly higher numbers than lower social classes and hence why dispite being incredibly poor many of the lowest earners are still taxed at unjustly high rates (or they are in my view). In my view your proposals would multiple such problems.

    Other difficulties such as how do you identify those who vote 'emotively' and why should 'emotive' votes be excluded anyway have been addressed by other posters so I won't steal their arguments!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mineko)
    Questionable. I personally don't think democratic stablity depends on people being alowed to hold emotive unqualified opinions. Conversely I believe there will be more democracy if everyone was well informed. And if the system is less stable when real democracy is introduced then that will be ok too because it will mean that the parties will have to be more responsive to the needs of the nation (as oposed to pressure groups because safe seats will be removed) and there may be more choice for the voter.
    needs of those voting only....actually and less choice definately since the policies only have to appeal to a smaller group of people
    (Original post by Mineko)
    Lets think about the principles behind under 18s not being able to vote. Is it not because they are generally thought to be less well informed? Well the test intends to identify over 18s who are less well informed. Why should under 18s be discriminated against because they are less well informed whilst ignorant over 18s may vote? Is that not ageist? So why do we not extend the principle that all the ignorant may not vote?
    totally irrelevant in the main, are you going to scrap the vote for all 18's as well then?
    (Original post by Mineko)
    Is this not an appeal to indirect consequences? With proper safeguards this need not happen.
    these things need to be considered , as with all legislations the other consequenes that occur can be equally important
    (Original post by Mineko)
    Please see my first post
    the public ill-informed? that isnt a problem with the system
    (Original post by Mineko)
    Realistically, not everyone who votes watches the BBC. And anyway the impartiallity of the BBC is questionable.
    hardly
    (Original post by Mineko)
    Basically the suppession of minority interests by the majority
    thats ironic as what you are introducing as Imagashead is the majorities choices being made for them by a minority which in my book is kinda becoming like a dictatorship? I mean how bright should you be? if there are brighter people than only those who pass the test why not have them making all the decisions? eventually you end up with one person - the brightest most informed - an exageration of your arguement but you see whether it leds
    (Original post by Mineko)
    Criminal justice system, death penalty, asylum seekers etc
    why isnt tax emotive?
    (Original post by Mineko)
    Their views or the biased views of the Mail? The system I am proposing aims to ensure that people are able to see all the sides of a poitical debate and therefore form opions of their own (as opposed to being brainwashed) which they will then be able to express in their voting when the pass the test.
    So the views of the mail are wrong are they?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mineko)
    I think our ''democratic'' system of government is a bad idea because the public seems so badly educated on politcal issues and its opinion appears to be so easily swayed by emotive populist appeals (such as those in tabloids about hanging/ asylum seekers etc).

    I suspect most of the public votes on gut feeling (or even at random!) or on issues which have been convoluted by the media. This is not democracy.

    I think people should have to take a test to be able to vote. The test need to be very hard, but should ensure that people have a reasonable amount of knowledge which will enable them to make informed decisions when voting.

    The questions might be on the different manifestos and on political issues such as the economy (tax), education, health etc ...

    Any opinions?
    I agree, however any attempt to change the system so that you have to qualify for the vote or to become a citizen in some manner is so open to corruption and abuse that it would never be allowed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imagashead)
    I am suggesting that imposing a voting qualification such as the one you suggest would LOWER turnout, since a 'band' of people - hardly a unified group admittedly - who currently vote - some perhaps on the 'emotive' basis you orginally cited - would decide that they cannot be arsed with the lessons and the tests and decide not to vote.

    I know this is a guess, but my guess would be that this group would be predominately from the lower socio-economic groups - since research evidence suggests the higher the socio-economic group the greater the interest in politics.

    As a result Politicians would inevitably aim more policies at the remaining 'educated elite' (due to the self interest argument I outlined earlier and you have not challenged), and this would lead to more policies being aimed at this 'elite' disproportionately of the higher socio-economic groups. This in my view would be UNFAIR AND UNJUST although of course you may argue that is not the point since its self-inflicted, I think it is the point.

    Indeed, the fact that politicians today aim so many policies at the middle class is a product of the fact that they vote in vastly higher numbers than lower social classes and hence why dispite being incredibly poor many of the lowest earners are still taxed at unjustly high rates (or they are in my view). In my view your proposals would multiple such problems.

    Other difficulties such as how do you identify those who vote 'emotively' and why should 'emotive' votes be excluded anyway have been addressed by other posters so I won't steal their arguments!

    If the politcal education was targeted properly, in an attracive way, then all but the smallest minority would be able to pass the test and would therefore have sufficient political knowledge to empower themselves politcally through pressure groups, joining local govt, standing in elections and maybe even forming parties to represent themselves. This would surely be more democratic than continuing to let everyone vote blindly and not really have any politcal influence.

    They would also have sufficient knowledge on the different political parties and would be able to vote for the ones which really reprented them and not just for one party out of traditional party alignment reasons.

    Introducing the test may actually increase voter turnout because it would lead more people who are disillusioned with the political system to inform themselves to avoid losing the right altogether.

    I actually know people who periodically troop out to vote Labour and because they were disillusioned by the war they saw no alternative party to vote for, they would not even consider the Conservatives and barely knew the Lib-dems existed and decided not to vote. After learning about all the different parties and seeing the different manifestos they did go to vote but had they not been informed they did they would not have gone.

    There is no need for certain groups to be excluded! (If it is marketed in an effective way) And therefore the problems you suggest need not happen!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    needs of those voting only....actually and less choice definately since the policies only have to appeal to a smaller group of people
    People should be free to hold their extreme opinions but they should also be aware of other opinions and this awareness of other opinions would be tested. In my experience exteme opinions are formed when people are limited by only being introduced to one side of a debate. In my opinion people being brainwashed into only seeing one side of a debate is more undemocratic than ensuring that everyone is given a set of balanced sources and then allowed to to decide for themselves (sticking to their extreme opinions if they want).

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Totally irrelevant in the main, are you going to scrap the vote for all 18's as well then?
    No, it is not totally irrelevant, you think it is alright to ban one set of suposedly ignorant people but not another. Why do you think it is alright to ban under 18s?

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    these things need to be considered , as with all legislations the other consequenes that occur can be equally important
    True.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    the public ill-informed? that isnt a problem with the system
    Of course the public being to ill-informed to vote rationally is a problem with the system!

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    thats ironic as what you are introducing as Imagashead is the majorities choices being made for them by a minority
    Of course the independent body in charge of administering the test would target the course well and therefore the vast majority would be able to vote!

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    I mean how bright should you be? if there are brighter people than only those who pass the test why not have them making all the decisions? eventually you end up with one person - the brightest most informed - an exageration of your arguement but you see whether it leds
    See above

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Why isnt tax emotive?
    It could be, but in my opinion people are not brainwashed by sources about tax, your average voter is hardly going to vote for a party because it reduces tax for businesses (and therefore increases the prosperity of the country) they are more likely to vote in a self-serving way and reduce their own tax. The emotive source will have more effect on issues less clear cut than tax which have less direct ramifications than tax.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    So the views of the mail are wrong are they?
    They are just not very balanced.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Mineko have you by any chance been reading Plato's The Republic?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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.