Forum menu
Or how about your vote counts less as you get older? So you could divide the average lifespan (80yrs?) by your age and this would equal how much your vote counts. So a 20yr olds vote would count 4x that of an 80yr old. This would make your vote count proportionately to how much life you have left to benefit from your vote. This would have really helped in the Brexit vote and the last election (if you are remainer or a lefty :))
Quod erat demonstrandum
Check out Harry Potter!
I don’t quite go that far, but there is a dark part of me that wonders if people should have to pass a simple test to check they have at least some rudimentary understanding of what they are actually voting for.
Nothing complex, just something like “You have selected the X party. To validate your vote please select three of their campaign promises from the list below"
That would work 100% of the time if you offered it as market research with a free gift at the end. Pass the test, get a vote, fail it, still get a gift. Win or win, depending on whether you are stupid/cheap enough to be easily bought with baubles and shiny things.
IQ tests are a bit shit for judging intelligence. Great for judging how good you are at doing IQ tests though. Loving how this thread is basically taking us back in time. Commoners can’t vote, they’re too thick. Women? No chance! As for those minorities etc etc....
Slippery slope trying to suggest that certain folk can’t vote or one vote should count more than the next. Live in a democracy, at some point you aren’t going to like the outcome. I think Brexit was an idiotic thing to do and that the Conservative party is ridiculous. I’d ban anyone from voting Conservative
dunno how twitter links work, but whitehouse taking direct control of special forces?
https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/1329065639881879557
IQ tests are a bit shit for judging intelligence. Great for judging how good you are at doing IQ tests though. Loving how this thread is basically taking us back in time. Commoners can’t vote, they’re too thick. Women? No chance! As for those minorities etc etc….
Slippery slope trying to suggest that certain folk can’t vote or one vote should count more than the next. Live in a democracy, at some point you aren’t going to like the outcome.
Perhaps it reflects the fact that democracy hasn't come to terms with the effect of social media. If you believe that the best form of government is the one where everyone has a say you need a plan for when popular sentiment is subverted.
This guy is an Appellate Lawyer and has been doing some nice commentary on Rudy’s court appearance:
That is a total car crash thread... brilliant AND scary.
Perhaps it reflects the fact that democracy hasn’t come to terms with the effect of social media. If you believe that the best form of government is the one where everyone has a say you need a plan for when popular sentiment is subverted.
Or you accept that roughly half the population that can be arsed to vote consists of deranged people or those with views directly opposed to yours and roll them dice every few years!
If you're not prepared to engage in, nor capable of understanding the issues** then you should decline to vote. Not sure how this would be enforced but it was Socrates view of the single biggest failing of democracy. It shouldn't be elitist based on intelligence or social standing, just a "can't be arsed, get out of the way" approach.
** which would've ruled a Brexit referendum out on the basis that very few (me included) could really understand either the issues or the ramifications.
Yeah that Appellate Lawyer thread is something else.
If you’re not prepared to engage in, nor capable of understanding the issues** then you should decline to vote. Not sure how this would be enforced but it was Socrates view of the single biggest failing of democracy. It shouldn’t be elitist based on intelligence or social standing, just a “can’t be arsed, get out of the way” approach.
** which would’ve ruled a Brexit referendum out on the basis that very few (me included) could really understand either the issues or the ramifications.
I've long thought that one possible system should be that everyone is granted a vote. But along with your vote comes a short test on the policies of the parties or the governance on the country. A bunch of randomised question so you can't just memories the answers from your more informed mate who voted before you. You pass the test and your vote is counted. Otherwise it goes in a bin marked fud. The voter never knows if theirs counted or not. The questions could be horrifically simple yet it would still filter out the most ignorant and politically bigoted in or midsts from influencing our futures.
trump's concession speech...
https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1328743149691396096?s=20
I’ve long thought that one possible system should be that everyone is granted a vote. But along with your vote comes a short test on the policies of the parties or the governance on the country. A bunch of randomised question so you can’t just memories the answers from your more informed mate who voted before you. You pass the test and your vote is counted. Otherwise it goes in a bin marked fud. The voter never knows if theirs counted or not. The questions could be horrifically simple yet it would still filter out the most ignorant and politically bigoted in or midsts from influencing our futures.
I struggle to see what's wrong with this. Just a very very simple general knowledge quiz about factual information to do with politics/government - to show you've given it some thought.
I struggle to see what’s wrong with this
We can't get people to wear a masks without screaming about their freedoms! This would cause them to go into orbit.
Edit: Here in the US! It would probably just get a little tut in the UK.
One thing they most of them seem to have in common is being utterly socio-politically illiterate and poorly educated in general.
I support proportional voting based on IQ.
Wait, I said poorly-educated and socio-politically illiterate. Not IQ.
I’m fairly certain one could have a high IQ yet still believe that ‘Communism’ = a mixed economy, simply because ‘did not read books’.
Just a very very simple general knowledge quiz about factual information to do with politics/government – to show you’ve given it some thought.
Try presenting that argument/questionnaire to 70 million voters, many who think that facts and beliefs are fungible concepts with ‘facts’ being on the side of a global liberal conspiracy while ‘FACT’ = ‘what I believe’.
The question thing sounds good in theory, but you’re still removing people’s votes at the end of the day. I might not agree with the outcome, but believe everyone should have the right to vote (or not) regardless of how much research they’ve done. All the questions would do is skew the vote to those with the most free time to dedicate to political learning.That’d be the old people that, as we’ve seen, aren’t very reliable when it comes to thinking in the long term.
Re "minimum intelligence required" in order to vote:
Just borrowed this from the Oz thread . . . .
.... so this is the "sort of person" who could be voting with/against (assuming he actually lives to the age of 18, which seems unlikely).
🙂
Meh! Teenager trying to impress girl after drinking lots. Just so happens that that there are really ****ing dangerous animals where he is 😀
The question thing sounds good in theory, but you’re still removing people’s votes at the end of the day. I might not agree with the outcome, but believe everyone should have the right to vote (or not) regardless of how much research they’ve done. All the questions would do is skew the vote to those with the most free time to dedicate to political learning
Agree with this. And but whut are they lurnin em in skool?
You'd get better results from automatic voter registration, than with a test for voting. The states would define their own tests. So it would just become another way for the GOP controlled states to gerrymander. Automatic voter registration would still be open to some abuse by states, but it would be less. Trying to take away votes would never work. Trying to increase voter turnout would increase the chances of better presidents.
Instead of trying to invent systems that discriminate, why not try a system where everyone's vote is equal?
FFS half the problem with the current systems is unequal votes and voter suppression, and you ****wits, displaying all the narcissism of Trump, want to embrace it and make it far far worse.
FFS the problem with the current system is unequal votes and voter suppression
FTFY
All the questions would do is skew the vote to those with the most free time to dedicate to political learning.That’d be the old people that, as we’ve seen, aren’t very reliable when it comes to thinking in the long term.
The sort of questions I had in mind could be answered be anyone with a vague knowledge. Nothing that would require revision of any sort though I suppose you could put a flyer in the post or 5 min video with all the answers in.
And if you are worried for that being too much bother for the millennials make voting compulsory like Australia.
One thing they most of them seem to have in common is being utterly socio-politically illiterate and poorly educated in general.
I support proportional voting based on IQ.
Every voter sits an IQ test when registering to vote. They are then given a certain number of votes depending on their IQ bracket. Low IQ = small number of votes.
I’m sure if that was in place we wouldn’t be dealing with Brexit now and Trump would never have become President.
at risk of making this about Brexit, but...
A lot of the problem with our vote was that loads of the voters *felt* that they weren’t represented by the political elite (for whatever reason).
I very much doubt that actually ensuring that a part of the population (half, of I understand it correctly) is less represented than the rest - or not represented at all - will end they way you think it will
Any voter qualification test would be subject, at least to some extent, by the biases of the people setting the test. In the US this would not doubt be something decided on by politicians or political appointees who would take it as another opportunity to stack the electoral deck in their favour. Even in countries that may be more willing to let somewhat independent and/or politically neutral parties set the test it would probably still be subject to unconscious and/or cultural biases that would disenfranchise some groups unfairly.
The current U.S. system seem to work pretty well to me. The opposition has the right to exist and has won, that isn't possible in a lot of places.
They could perhaps abandon the electoral college system for the presidential vote and rebalance the electoral colleges for the senate, but in terms of a reliable result within their system as it stands I think they've done well.
The bottom line to the world's problems is nearly always education.
Teach kids very basic politics, philosophy and media studies.
Teach kids very basic politics, philosophy and media studies.
This ^^^
(Depending on how old you are) remember when you (OK I) used to take the piss out of the simple existence of 'media studies' - an A-level or degree for watching telly. I was so very wrong.
when you (OK I) used to take the piss out of the simple existence of ‘media studies’ – an A-level or degree for watching telly. I was so very wrong.
Ah yes, meeja studies; I was also very wrong about it - dismissed it without making any effort to understand what it might cover.
dismissed it without making any effort to understand what it might cover.
...and then. Some student at Harvard invented an online student directory....
Or are you only 25?? and just couldn't be arsed 😉
Yes it was very new when was young and people took the piss. To be honest I don't know if they covered the shady side of media manipulation and bias - but they bloody well should.
Teach kids very basic politics, philosophy and media studies.
All well and good but educated voters are the last thing that politicians want, particularly those on the right of centre.
Could you imagine how the mere wife of voters tests would go down in a country that used them to bar black voters?
The bottom line to the world’s problems is nearly always education.
Teach kids very basic politics, philosophy and media studies.
And then make it compulsory to vote.
The bottom line to the world’s problems is always money
That’s the truth of it.
The bottom line to the world’s problems is always money
Or religion - they are often inextricably linked.
https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1329213793839222786
https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1329183644108328965
Good ole Rudy won't give up in Pennsylvania - they're trying again...
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/18/trump-pennsylvania-election-lawsuit-437996
I fully expect this to be summarily rejected by the judge.
MoreCashThanDash
And then make it compulsory to vote.
I used to favour this, but I'm not sure anymore. The idea is that you are forcing people to engage with the political discourse, but I think what you actually get are people voting despite not being engaged in politics at all - just voting for the candidates with the best soundbites.
If you are politically engaged, then you will vote. If you are not engaged with politics..... then frankly, I would rather you didn't vote
Re. testing voters for IQ or some other kind of knowledge. That's a pretty bold move away from a democracy to a form of aristocracy. There are arguments for that style of government but make no mistake you are arguing against democracy if you go down those lines.
IQ does seem to be a good measure of intelligence but it doesn't measure any of the other qualities we might aspire to. Compassion, courage, enthusiasm, resilience etc. Most terrifying of all is there is nothing to say IQ will be evenly distributed between whatever groups you choose to define. As a policy it would almost certainly tick off every "-ist" you could think of and mix in some regional discrimination for good measure.
It's one of those ideas that sound OK but the implementation of it is horrendous, and you would end up looking like a very unpleasant country if you tried.
Re. testing voters for IQ or some other kind of knowledge. That’s a pretty bold move away from a democracy to a form of aristocracy. There are arguments for that style of government but make no mistake you are arguing against democracy if you go down those lines.
Exactly. It's a really silly idea that has been tried in all sorts of ways and always turned out bad. I get the frustration about uninformed voters casting votes that I disagree with (seriously, I cannot understand why anybody would think Trump was remotely fit for public office), but the only way to run a democracy is for every adult to be allowed to vote. To my mind, the most damning thing about the Republican Party in the U.S. is that their electoral strategy is centered around restricting non-supporters' ability to vote. They've given up trying to appeal to a majority of voters and settled for disenfranchising enough people to let them retain power with minority support. It's utterly stunning that a serious political party in a democracy would think that a strategy like that was in any way acceptable.
Tests of IQ or civic knowledge are standard ways to disenfranchise poor people. Not because they're unintelligent, but because it's very easy to set things up to make it much more difficult for poor people to succeed. That was a standard way to exclude Black voters in the U.S. before civil rights legislation was passed in the 1960s. I like to rant about the stupidity of voters as much as the next person, but I understand that it's just letting off steam, not a serious proposal to disenfranchise people who disagree with me.