As I said, it was merely a suggestion. No need to start throwing words like "stupid" around when it's ultimately a matter of opinion.(Original post by MADMANMALIK)
Yes. Give the government a way of barring people to vote on a “legitimate” basis. That definitely can’t go wrong. I am sure no Prime Minister would ever use it as a system of keeping themselves in power.
Nonetheless. That idea is stupid. Anyone that is a British citizen should be allowed to vote no matter what. Democracy can be seen as a *****y way of running a nation by mob rule, where 6 stupid ppl can out vote 4 smart ones— BUT it is the best humanity has come so far in practice.
Putting down aptitude tests for voting rights is most definitely a potential slippery slope into an Orwellian sort of world. Not to mention undemocratic as its not the people’s choice but people that the government deems “smart” or “knowledgable” enough to vote.
This would most likely hit the poorer classes and ethnic minority groups and further add do the wealth gap.
Generally people dont vote if they dont care or understand anything anyways. Remoaners are overstating how many people voted on basis of misinformation such as the millions of £££ to NHS if we leave.
But, back to the question. My idea was that those who would choose to take politics will be, shot in the dark, more politically inclined anyway, and would therefore do their research beforehand with or without a GCSE in politics, so there is probably no need for a course. I think what the OP was suggested that with young people getting more involved with politics as of recently, and with a lot of discussion regarding lowering the voting age, young people will be more likely to vote, so it's important that they are aware of the significance of the decisions they make.
Also, barring people from voting based on their perceived understanding of politics is already in place. We have a minimum voting age as the general idea is that minors don't have the knowledge and understanding of politics in order to make an informed decision about what's best for their country. However, there are many people below the minimum voting age who have a much better understanding than people who are able to vote. Nonetheless, we do not allow them to vote. Since that's based on a preconceived notion rather than proof (which a test could provide), surely that's much less fair than if we were to allow people who wish to vote and have genuine concerns about the future of the nation to prove themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this to imply that an 8 year old should be able to vote because he or she understands the law and the current political climate, but rather to put it into perspective.
Also, (and I'm not challenging you on this, necessarily, but I'm interested to see what you mean and would appreciate if you elaborated), I'm not sure how it would affect ethnic minorities. Again, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I'm unsure what you were trying to get at.
Should Politics replace Religious Studies in schools? watch
- 07-11-2017 19:56
- 07-11-2017 20:12
Of course only agnostic people would be against RE ... pathetic
- 07-11-2017 20:14
RE shouldnt be replaced by anything , however there should be an option to do either politics or RE
(Original post by The Learn Ranger)
- 08-11-2017 17:22
I'm not at all sure that quite a large proportion of the world's population would agree - maybe in the UK but a significant minority wouldn't feel like that.
Hopefully it wouldn't be - do you think it's like this right now? And is religion always 'personal'?
Surely PE is a reasonable element of the curriculum? It's important to keep healthy and fit and it offers students different types of opportunities to the usual academic stuff
Also, I agree religion isn't too personal most of the time. People tend to believe what they were taught by parents mostly. Some people change their belief but ultimately learning a bit about many religions to at least understand what somebody else believes can be useful.