Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
I firmly believe that voting should be made compulsory.
I also firmly believe that there should be a 'none of the above' option in order that those who are sceptical about all politicians (suggest a better system - and no, I don't thing that anarchy would work and I'm not keen on dictatorships given their previous history).
It would be a good idea to have local and national elections on the same day where possible to avoid 'voter fatigue' and to make exceptions where people are unable to vote for reasons of health (doctor's certificate required for proof), geographical location (away from their constituency, out of the country - but a proxy vote could cover these contingencies) or religious conviction (a sort of 'conscientious objector' system).
I think that compulsory voting would focus attention on matters that really affect us (and others) and that it would prevent apathy being the politicians' best friend.
and the flowers and birds 😉
Its our democratic right not to vote 🙂
How are you going to ensure that everyone is on the electoral register ?
What would be the punishment for not voting ?
If people don't want to vote, and will just tick any box, is forcing them likely to give a distorted result ?
Why stop at that Julian? tell us who to vote for too.
No way- as not voting is the only way you can express your distaste for the current system.
If we all didnt vote then perhaps they may change it.
redthunder - Member
and the flowers and birds
Not sure how they could vote anyway: they might have to be excused (and what about animals: are you being flowerist and birdist here)
Its our democratic right not to vote
True, but if you want to live in a democracy, don't you feel a duty to participlate? Obviously not... That's a shame.
trailmonkey - Member
How are you going to ensure that everyone is on the electoral register ?
Not sure, but we get a letter asking us to confirm our details quite regularly, and I think there may be legal consequences for failing to register / provide accurate details
What would be the punishment for not voting ?
A fine? Why wouldn't you want to vote? I suggested a 'none of the above' option so that people can express their discontent with all parties (and a 75% 'none of the above' vote would express that pretty clearly, I suggest)
If people don't want to vote, and will just tick any box, is forcing them likely to give a distorted result ?
See above...
GW - Member
Why stop at that Julian? tell us who to vote for too.
Where in my post did I suggest that? See the 'none of the above' get-out clause.
guido - Member
No way- as not voting is the only way you can express your distaste for the current system.
If we all didnt vote then perhaps they may change it.
Actually, I suggest that spoiling your paper might be effective as well. (But see the 'none of the above' get-out clause.)
If we all didn't vote then whichever administration is currently in power then surely they will stay there.
Sorry i didnt explain myself. i dont see the point in voting due to the fact that anything our MP's want to do can be overturned by some unelected (tory)lords.
So why should i bother leaving my house to spoil a bit of paper? just dont go.
Actually I do vote, always. But it is my choice THANKFULLY.
yes spoiling your ballot paper/abstaining is still fine but FFS vote. People died for you to have this power now excercise it please.
i dont see the point in voting due to the fact that anything our MP's want to do can be overturned by some unelected (tory)lords.
no they cannot the best they can do it delay for two years (if not a budget) nice taht you dont vote and your reason is factually incorrect.
Thanks for winging on a forum that will show them
@ Julian
r u tandemjeremy in disguise 😉
I do actually vote EVERYTIME BTW.
I just dont think it should be the LAW it should be your choice.
Quick test voting is compulsory but only if wearing a helmet
foolproof way of outing TJ I think
Lets have a vote on it?
too damned right it should be compulsory to vote. It is already compulsory to be registered, by the way, and other democratically run countries successfully make voting compulsory.
People are too ready to complain about the country they live in, without being ready to take any responsibility, no matter how small, for it's leadership, and ultimately, it's policies.
I vote for a Guido dictatorship.
guido - Member
Sorry i didnt explain myself. i dont see the point in voting due to the fact that anything our MP's want to do can be overturned by some unelected (tory)lords.
So why should i bother leaving my house to spoil a bit of paper? just dont go.
I'm pretty sure that it's not just Tory Lords that overturn stuff: last time I heard the majority in the House of Lords was Lib Dem...
You should consider bothering to leave your house (your nearest polling station should be pretty close) as, if you don't, whichever is the current administration will win (and this one will impose ID cards and the travel database (previously mentioned on here somewhere) amd quite a lot of other stuff which will (further) severely restrict our liberties.
JulianA i do always vote actually. I just playing devil. please see my other post.
and i want rid of all the lords- i dont really care about what party they are from i just dislike tory lords the most. thats all.
guido and redthunder: nice bit of devil's advocacy there then!
You are obviously not the people that this thread was aimed at then (and there is no-one on here that it WAS aimed at), but I think that if more people got involved with the process (and in some countries people do want to be involved with the way their country is run) we might just have a country that is better to live in.
Thank you also junkyard and vinnyeh for some very relevant comments.
I am not TandemJeremy, by the way. I actually seem to find myself disagreeing with quite a lot of what he says (but would defend, if not to the death, his right to say it!)
I still think baby Robins should be able to vote 😉
When voting, should wearing helmets be compulsory 🙂
[i]People died for you to have this power now excercise it please.[/i]
people died for us to have various freedoms too. Like the ability to choose whether you do something or not.
I vote nearly every time, but I think a low turnout is the sign of a healthy democracy.
Sounds counter-intuitive, but what it indicates is that nobody really thinks a major change is required.
If there was the possibiity of a free, no recrimination vote in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Zimbabwe the turnout would be 100%.
(well, 120% actually)
if you want to live in a democracy, don't you feel a duty to participlate?
Is putting a cross on a bit of paper every few years [i]really[/i] participating though?
I think almost the exact opposite. Your vote should only count if you can correctly answer some very basic multi-choice questions about the policies of the party you are voting for.
[i]People died for you to have this power now excercise it please.
people died for us to have various freedoms too. Like the ability to choose whether you do something or not.[/i]
Not sure that is why she jumped in front of a horse what do you think?
You can still excercise choice but you will need ot do it in the polling booth.
EDIT: I agree with GarahamS
what's the difference, in real terms, between ticking a box that says "none of them" and just not voting?
Oh, I give up!
If you can't see why you should vote you should probably be debarred from so doing. You know who you are.
I wonder why I bother and just want to live somewhere where other intelligent people live.
A decent opposition is required. Who would really care about the 'none of the above' votes?
What would be the cost / benefit of compulsory voting against punishing all those that didn't vote?
We have a decent opposition. The Conservative Party. See scrapping of ID cards, etc.
Who TF cares about cost / benefit? We're talking about the potential (probable) loss of basic, essential liberties here. Or at least, [i]I[/i] was.
I wish I hadn't started this thread (I knew that would happen!) as it has just highlighted the apathy (if not the ignorance) of the people in this country.
Sorry, this started as an attempt at a discussion but that doesn't seem possible in this country.
Thanks to those of you who [i]have[/i] entered into discussion.
More beer required, bye.
erm...do you actually understand anarchism as a concept? It doesn't strictly mean what the Pistols would have you believe... 😉
Libertarian socialism anyone?
Yes, I believe I do understand anarchism as a concept, but I also believe that it requires a level of personal responsibility that doesn't exist in this country (or others: discuss, please).
I also think it couldn't work in a world where we need to pay taxes and work with other countries: wouldn't it lead to any country adopting it being marginalised and joining the third world (as if we aren't a third world country already!)
What is Libertarian socialism?
JulianA, I see where you're coming from with your argument, but it is fundamentally flawed on a couple of levels.
Firstly, some people are just too apathetic to vote. And whilst I don't understand this myself (I would always vote, regardless of whether I think they're all tossers or not), I do see it as adding a healthy balance into the mix that is the UK public. The apathetic portion of the population add balance to those of us that wish to change/improve things. They send out the message either that they're not fussed by any change, or that they don't think a change would be any better or worse. The problem with voting occurs when you either have too many people that want to vote (ie. Zimbabwe everyone would without any ramifications), or you get too few that want to vote (as in the UK right now as most people have given up on politicians as not being able to make any difference at all). You need a healthy balance, which I suggest would be that more than 50% of the eligible UK population vote in a General Election. I think if less than 50% vote, the result is not representative of the majority of the population. If 100% of the population voted, that would tell me we were in a dictatorship!
Problem number 2 is that whilst I think "none of the above" would be a very viable option, the problem is that if you put it as an option, and then force everyone to vote, when inevitably 75% of the votes counted are for "none of the above", what happens then? TOTAL ANARCHY basically! Not something I'd appreciate, even in lieu of the current Labour Government...
I also think it couldn't work in a world where we need to pay taxes and work with other countries: wouldn't it lead to any country adopting it being marginalised and joining the third world (as if we aren't a third world country already!)
Get a grip!
The UK has a very much weakened economy right now, and is going through a massive period of change (as are many other countries worldwide) right now. As a nation, we are in a weaker position when compared to many of our contemporaries than we have been in a long long time, BUT... WE ARE NOT, NOR WILL WE EVER BE (at least in our lifetimes), a third world country!
The Conservative Party are a decent opposition? All they do is support / or are supported by the popular headlines of the 'Red tops' without any substance, although I agree that the ID cards thing is a joke.
I do think that the current governemnt is a joke, and their economic legacy leaves a bad taste, but IMO any other government would have followed the same route, its all globalisation isn't it, at the hands of the lying multi-national corporations.
A decent opposition is one that would grow some balls, but unfortunately that would mean transforming the opinions of 70% of the population as it would mean so many concessions of what we've all gotten used to, including multiple bikes, trail centres and a nice car on low priced fuel to get there in than less than 3 hours from London
Change the parliament to PR, and then I'll agree with you on compulsory voting. With a FPTP system, compulsory voting would make no discernible difference to the outcome of the vote in large swathes of the country.
mboy - agree with your post.
Sad that people are too apathetic to vote.
Agree that 100% (or 120%!) turnout would be highly suspect, and that a less than 50% turnout would be less than a mandate, but it I think it would be better for this country if most of us cast our vote.
The question of what we would do if 75% of voters said 'none of the above' is open to question: it would be nice (but rather innocent) to think it wouldn't happen.
What if they changed the rules to say that less than the majority of the population voted you can't have a majority result?
Given the previous posts about Dan Hannan, MEP, I thought that some other people might have been along: Stoner and CFH, and of course RudeBoy...
Spoiling your ballot doesn't work though, as it is not representative of you not liking a specific candidate. Take the 2007 Scottish elections, where 150,000 papers were spoilt, up tenfold on the 1999 elections.
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6232160.stm ]Link[/url]
Democracy at work indeed.
Sorry, previous posts overtook mine.
Yes, the Conservative Party ARE a decent opposition: even if you only look at scrapping ID cards. Fancy paying £300 - £500 pounds for your ID card? then vote Labour. Fancy having to give all the details of your holiday to the government? Then vote Labour.
Third world country?
North Staffs Hospital and Gosport War Memorial Hospital for two examples...
Knife crime and muggings for two more?
Ever been abroad and felt safer than you do in this country? I feel safer EVERY time I go abroad (except where I live now is lovely)
Yes, the Conservative Party ARE a decent opposition
With all the political threads on here at the moment, this was the funniest line.
Both tory and Labour are two ends of the same stick. A complete change of politics is required.
Third world country?North Staffs Hospital and Gosport War Memorial Hospital for two examples...
Knife crime and muggings for two more?
Ever been abroad and felt safer than you do in this country? I feel safer EVERY time I go abroad (except where I live now is lovely)
Eeeesh! *bangs head against the wall*
Without wishing to get all PC on the term "3rd World" (which is defunct these days anyway, it's "developing countries"), we are not 3rd World by any stretch of the imagination.
A badly run hopsital or two, a few gun and knife crimes, that makes us 3rd World does it? It makes for an undesirable situation indeed, but it doesn't make us 3rd World (otherwise the USA would have been 3rd World for decades now!). 3rd World was used to denote those countries that were not developed economically, industrially, in their healthcare, standard of living, standard of education etc etc. Whilst I would love that the UK healthcare was significantly better than it is, education improved, crime was non-existent and we had a booming manufacturing industry, I'm also a realist! In any society there are extremes at both ends of a scale, but for the mostpart the average UK citizen has a very cushy and very sheltered life compared to most other countries in the world. This coming from someone who's been on the dole for almost 4 months now as I've not had a job in that long, and whilst I'm more skint than I've ever been, I'm glad I'm jobless in the UK where we have a benefits and welfare system that at least partially works!
Oh, and for the doubters, the problem with seeing the Conservative party as anything but a decent opposition is down to decades old prejudice. It's also a result of total apathy, and the view that "all politicians are the same" which the majority seem to hold. The moment the masses get off their asses and start doing something about trying to improve this country, instead of just abusing those that do try, is the moment progress should start happening. But then after all, we are British, and it's in our nature to moan but never actually do anything about a situation when push comes to shove! 😉
In an ideal world people not voting (through choice) is a good thing. Politicians should be aware that there are more than enough previously inactive voters out there to really F their S up should a big enough issue/desire for change come along that brings people to the polls
Somehow I doubt they are aware though. Funny that
Given the daft schemes that come about when elections are near, I'd like to see a system where the weight of your vote is proportionate to your intellect. That way, silly ideas wouldn't come forward just to win votes from a large number of numpties
Yes, the Conservative Party ARE a decent opposition: even if you only look at scrapping ID cards. Fancy paying £300 - £500 pounds for your ID card? then vote Labour. Fancy having to give all the details of your holiday to the government? Then vote Labour.
Sure, ID cards are a waste of time and money. But I'm not quite sure how that's related to telling your holiday details to the government - if you go abroad now you have to show your passport...
Third world country?North Staffs Hospital and Gosport War Memorial Hospital for two examples...
Knife crime and muggings for two more?
Have you actually ever been to a real third-world (sorry, developing) country? Seen the grinding, in-your-face poverty up close? Britain is nowhere near that.
Still, making voting compulsory would certainly be interesting. And seeing how the politicians (of all colours) justify a 75% "none of the above" result would certainly be worth watching 🙂
(Some of you Brits just don't know how lucky you are. OK some hospitals aren't great but they are free at the point of delivery, and generally have doctors and nurses in them.)
I think voting is complusory in Australia ? Not sure how often they prosecute people tho.
And on the subject of protest votes, I vote for the woman every time, irrelevant of party as I think that is a bigger issue. This maddens many of my friends to the point of screaming matches in pubs, I am apparentely personally responsible for the election of Tommy Sheridan, as the only female candidate in my electorate that year was Scottish Socialist. (Israel is my fault too).
Interesting idea tho...
I vote for the woman every time, irrelevant of party as I think that is a bigger issue.
How can you possibly justify that kind of sexism?
Oh this would seem to be directed at me!
I have exercised my right not to vote for about the last 7 years.
There is no current political party which represents my political leanings.
I refuse to participate, it only encourages them. It doesn't matter who you vote for anyway a [i]politician[/i] always gets in. The desire to become a politician should be grounds for barring them from becoming one.
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X = Democracy? Yeah? Right...
[i]People died for you to have this power now excercise it please.
people died for us to have various freedoms too. Like the ability to choose whether you do something or not.
Not sure that is why she jumped in front of a horse what do you think?[/i]
Oh, you're talking about one particular person? Sorry, I was talking about hundreds of thousands of people.
r u tandemjeremy in disguise [;-)]
No No TJ would have quote an obscure anti [s]helmet[/s] voting website. And brag on about how you are more likely to injure yourself voting than walking hence you should not be force to vote.
I do understand th OP point of view. However voting is a right not a duty. But people that don't vote should not complain.
redthunder - Member@ Julian
r u tandemjeremy in disguise [;-)]
Puleeze - I am a libertarian anarchist - no way am I in favour of compulsory anything.
redthunder - MemberWhen voting, should wearing helmets be compulsory [:-)]
Tin foil hats I would have thought
Sure, ID cards are a waste of time and money. But I'm not quite sure how that's related to telling your holiday details to the government - if you go abroad now you have to show your passport...
ID cards are not related to having to give the government details of your holiday. That was meant as another example of oppressive, restrictive legislation being introduced by the current government.
It was discussed here:
[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/labour-wants-you-to-log-your-travel-plans ]Travel plans thread[/url]
and is another very good reason to get rid of this government.
I'll tell you what I am in favour of to improve democracy is some mechanism for saying what your taxes go to - you have to pay the same amount but you could say all to healthcare or none to defence or whatever you like.
And what if everybody says 'no' to their taxes being spent in any particular area? Say the police?
Instead of putting all the onus on the non-voters, have you not thought that the politicians should share the blame for making people feel so helpless, and that their vote is going to make no difference to the way we are controlled?
All politicians are self-serving and only have their best interests at heart, they just wrap it up a little different IMO.
😛
you have to pay the same amount but you could say all to healthcare or none to defence or whatever you like.
TJ I normally credit you with having thought your ideas through but that one is just nuts. Whilst in principle it seems like a good idea you have forgotten that a population is stupid and selfish and won't fully consider the implications of their choices.
Fancy paying £300 - £500 pounds for your ID card?
So tell me, how much should an ID card cost and who should pay?*
*I should point out that I am not in favour of ID cards but my representative in the commons is apparently incapable of independent thought and refuses to represent my views!
Gonefishin - I think it would be interesting - maybe only a % of taxes being allocated in this way.
ID cards - a stupid idea, no need for anyone to pay for them. all they will do is make life easier for identity thieves and others who want to avoid detection. IMO one of the biggest blunders of this government.
Rich - Member
Instead of putting all the onus on the non-voters, have you not thought that the politicians should share the blame for making people feel so helpless, and that their vote is going to make no difference to the way we are controlled?
Couldn't agree more, but there are too many important issues coming up on which we should at least [i]try[/i] to make a difference...
Conservatives have said they will scrap ID cards: that alone should be a compelling reason to think about which way to vote.
So tell me, how much should an ID card cost and who should pay?
Pass. First thought is that if they are going to be compulsory they should be free. Leave out the biometric data to reduce the cost.
I actually have no objection to carrying an ID card: indeed, I really want to emigrate, and where ever I go it may be a requirement. I just don't want ID cards in the currently proposed format and I certainly don't want any more of my data than they already have going to the American government.
Cards could be
Name
Date Of Birth
NI Number (maybe)
Small photo
In fact, just like the plastic bit of the driving licence?
Cost of an ID card as above shouldn't be too high...
they should be free
So all the people working in the manufacture and distribution of the cards, the collation of all the data (however minimal) should all be completely altruistic and supply material and labour for free? Or do you mean that it should be paid out of general taxation? The taxation that is, in part, paid for by the general public and so will be footing the bill whether or not they are charged directly.
No, of course no-one should work or supply goods for nothing. Driving licences aren't free, so maybe ID cards could be done the same way (Can't recall what driving liceances cost, though).
The crucial point for me is that to impose something that most people don't want AND make them pay for it is wrong.
Looked at another way, it's just another tax, I suppose. Not looking forward to having to stump up several hundred quid all in one go though.
Then again, if enough people vote for a party that has pledged to scrap ID cards we won't have to! And this thread has gone full circle.
I blame thatcha, got it in first! Sorry could not resist.
JulianA, Ok making everyone vote is a good idea I can see that there would be a number of positives. The biggest being a large block of "none of the above" could hopefully not be ignored. However there are very reasonable objections regarding compuction from others. The best way to increase the vote is going to be difficult but politicians with a bit of honesty and fire would be a start, some one who actually enthuses people. Mind you I supose that when the middle ground wins elections we deserve the politiciands we have.
Voting for the woman isn't sexist - it's Affirmative Action. Or Positive Discrimination, if you like.
I've not read the whole thread so apologies if someone else suggested it. Far more people would vote if there was a simple way to do it via a web browser as it would take less effort. After all plenty of people fill in web surveys every day on Facebook, STW etc etc;-)
Voting for the woman isn't sexist - it's Affirmative Action. Or Positive Discrimination, if you like.
Voting for the man isn't sexist - it's Affirmative Action. Or Positive Discrimination, if you like.
Anyway back to the original question - the answer is No.
It would just be another erosion of civil liberty.
Apologies if this has been said already, but I speed read this.
Surely it is our democratic right not to vote (as has been said) but forcing us to vote becomes dictatorism. And the day the UK becomes a totalitarian state is the same date I shall be leaving, not acting, in a 1984 style, as their puppets.
Not everyone has the intelligence to vote and governments use this to come up with sound bites / catchy slogans to convince the dim witted to vote for them.
Im yet to meet a campainer who convinced me to vote for them, so until that happens I wont vote. I will vote for none of the above if it was an option and if the winning government had to win by a large PR majority.
Even in my life time governments have constantly gone back on promises made in elections, or decided to do something the majority didnt want ie. War in Iraqi, referendums etc etc - this is a reason many are apathetic and dissalusioned.
Sort this out and more would vote, but I really dont think everyone is engaged enough or educated enough to make voting choices that affect all of us.
For example, when you go to your doctor you dont also get the opinion of your local priest / witchdoctor / homeopathy person. You pick the one person best educate to make that importan choice. We should do this with choosing our governments.
I don't think Belgium, Greece and Australia count as dictatorships (not been to Aus though)...
I'm absoltely convinced that most of you couldn't give a flying f*** who you voted for or what their policies were as long as they represented your chosen colour (blue).
And even if hey failed you still wouldn't have the balls to admit it (see Thatcher).
I give flying whatsit who I vote for. Have voted blue, have voted red (sorry about that at the moment), have voted green. All after a while have been some what of a disapointment as they go stale and it's time for the others to have a go. Thats whats good about democracy I get to make my choice.
We have a decent opposition. The Conservative Party. See scrapping of ID cards, etc.
Scrapping ID cards - which they supported originally, and have only changed because they suddenly decided it'd be a vote winner.
Voted in favour of the Iraq war.
Will want to do even more crazy monopoly creating privatisations of the NHS, Schools etc. Are in favour of making our hospital system more like the insanely bureaucratic US one (where they have significantly worse health outcomes than here, despite spending far greater amounts of money on healthcare per person, and a large percentage of the population not getting any ongoing healthcare.)
So there's the Conservatives, with crazy right wing business-first policies which are just an extension of the whole Blairite agenda (which I guess was itself an extension of the Thatcherite agenda), which are exactly what has got us into this economic mess at the moment.
Then Labour - ignoring almost everyone about Iraq, taking us to war based on a bunch of lies, continuing to try and avoid an inquiry about it.
Or Lib Dems, some nice policies, it is nice that they are liberal on things like drugs, it is nice that they voted against Iraq, and unlike the other parties, they do appear to have principles, but they do sometimes seem a bit pie in the sky policy wise.
I have no idea who I'll vote for next time.
Joe
I think that some form of simple examination should be sat before a person is allowed to vote.
Off-topic, did anyone here a sample question from a physics GCSE paper this morning? What would you use to look at stars?
a)telescope
b)microscope
c)a catheter tube
d) I can't remember, but it was a cricket bat or something.
On topic: voting is about choice with not voting constituting one of them.
JulianC
Tests have always had easy questions. Remember that the paper has to be able to test the knowledge of the E-F candidates, as well as the A-B ones.
Without sounding trite, what is the point of someone only able to obtain a cabbage grade sitting the examination in the first place?
Julian - trolling or do you really think like that? Plonker
Very eloquent.
Right, I'm really bad at brick-laying. Let's say for example, I take a brick-laying examination. Passes are graded between A, the highest and F, the lowest attainable pass. I achieve an F.
Would you want me to build your house?
My point was that you can either do something or you cannot. That's life. What purpose does a poor pass at something as important as physics constitute? It's meaningless.
Now do carry on being an internet hard man.....
[i]Right, I'm really bad at brick-laying. Let's say for example, I take a brick-laying examination. Passes are graded between A, the highest and F, the lowest attainable pass. I achieve an F.[/i]
I think I see a flaw in your argument though.
By your logic, F becomes a pointless grade, because it's the lowest.
So let's scrap it and make E the lowest. You obtain an E.
Now E becomes a pointless grade because it's the lowest. You can see where this is going.
Forcing people to vote would just screw up the system and make those people vote for the most outspoken/publicised party - bad direction. Having a get-out clause is exactly the same as having the option to not vote.
Tests have always had easy questions. Remember that the paper has to be able to test the knowledge of the E-F candidates, as well as the A-B ones.
Not quite true, GCSE exams were (when i did them) sat in certain bands of paper, the hardest paper only allowed you to get B up to A*, if you got less than was needed for a B you got a U (ungraded, i.e. fail), the next paper down allowed C to A only and no matter what you couldnt get an A* etc, you were selected for which paper you were going to enter based on mock exams. This way you dont waste the time of the brighter students answerign 2+2 and likewise you allow a better resolution of results in all categories instead of making it essentially a pass-fail situation.
I think I see a flaw in your argument though.
By your logic, F becomes a pointless grade, because it's the lowest.
So let's scrap it and make E the lowest. You obtain an E.
Now E becomes a pointless grade because it's the lowest. You can see where this is going.
I'm seeing his logic, if you dont set a minimum level of attainment you dont really pass. i.e. if you did it with doctors you wouldnt want someone to pass with an F and be allowed to operate on you. IF you dont attain a C I dont want you near me, it doesnt then make C a pointless grade, it just means a minimum pass standard is set, by which you can say that the applicant has specific capabilities to a minimum standard that is safe to operate, rather than "yeah I passed but I'm pretty useless". Maybe I'm missing the point having not read through it all.