IQ is one thing, merely being educated in the fundamentals of what political parties stand for is another. Someone with a low IQ can do the latter.

My IQ is 137, how good is that cos it didn't say anything about the result. I hope I haven't just embarrassed myself !!!

 

In which case you wouldn't be able to know you didn't know LOL...

 

Right, with ya!!



Very good, Diablo!! Good to see a mod introducing a bit of comedy into a thread.

 

does happen sometimes

 

But, if you say "EVERYBODY should have the right to vote", you can't say that based on some arbitrary test some people shouldn't have the right to vote. It's a contradiction.

The reasoning that sounds "pathetic" to you, doesn't always sound pathetic to everyone else. Just because someone doesn't reason the same way as you, it doesn't mean that they are wrong. Politics is all about how you are perceived, and if someone (e.g. The Tories) are perceived as being too posh, or whatever, they are bad politicians.


Consider this little analogy:

I hate Rovers, and I think that people who buy them (probably) make an uninformed decision in doing so. Still, I don't think that we should ban people from buying Rovers. However, applying your logic, I should start a thread on Scoobynet for doing exactly this.

 

Not surprised you needed a few beers - soccer was ****e with a Capital S

BTW it would never work. Only homeowners was once suggested.

 

But if you buy a Rover, we can all laugh at your ill-informed choice of car.

However, ill-informed voting for pathetic (I'm sorry but they are pathetic) reasons affects others.

I see your points though.

Not a bad thread this, if I do say so myself!!!

 

I see your points as well, I just can't agree to what you're saying because I think it is morally wrong (although I agree that it would be tempting). It's a slippery slope.

 

When I see people saying "Hague's a short bald bloke" etc it infuriates me. I wanna slap them round the head with a big kipper.

If I was the reporter I'd say "right thanks for your input you thick f$ck, now does anybody have an opinion on how he may run the country"??

.....then slap them round the head with a big kipper!!!

 

Senior,

If by chance more Tory voters 'passed' your test than any other political party, would that make you happy??

Cheers
Guthrie

 

Immensely!!

 

What's the point in understanding anything about politics when they're all a bunch of lying cheating scumbags anyway?

I choose not to vote - my right in a democratic society - I also appreciate this means I have no right to complain about anything that goes on - fair enough. no one seems to make any difference to anything anyway, so what's the point?

 

That is fine, in a democracy you have that right and I see your point.

I'd prefer it if the ******** that vote with dumbass reasons stayed at home to.

 

Qualification to vote, a spelling test?

Too not to.

 

I'm with DBW on this one. I choose not to vote. I strongly believe that the elected government has to go along with the current thinking of the country's population in order to keep social order and stay in power. They cannot please everyone which is why other political parties exist. It doesn't matter which party you vote for, as whichever political party is in power will continue along the path of mainstream voters to maintain their popularity.

If that makes sense....

 

From post 1:

Before you vote, you do a small test. 10 basic questions regarding fundamentals of party political stances on given issues, a question about the voting system and *something* else.

If you fail then you lose the right to vote and a big flashing screen pops up and says "YOU'RE A THICKO, YOUR OPINION MEANS NOTHING, GO AWAY".

From post 19:

I don't care who votes, and for whom. However, it simply bothers me when people vote without any idea of why they are voting in that way.

From post 24:

Everybody should be allowed to vote.

From post 26:

As I said above - EVERYBODY should have the right to vote, I just want more educated voting instead of the current pathetic reasoning I here as to who people vote for.

Do I need to continue?

Henrik, I must have a cold as well. Senior_AP seems to have a right bee in his bonnet that he passed a politics A-level and is therefore far superior to the rest of the country. Yet the quality and consistency of his arguments show me that he’s fit to be nothing but a politician himself.

Senior_AP, do you know the difference between the right to vote and permission to vote? Doesn’t look like it. Wasn’t it included in your A-level?

 

Oh do shutup.

Another SN example of nothing better to say than pick up on typing errors.

Post in muppets ffs.

 

More soundbites. Again, a post skimmer. You miss the point and I expect nothing more.

Fine, I'll vote cos Blair wears nice shirts.

Bee in my bonnet, yeah you could f$cking say that yes!!

 

Another brush-off - "I'll listen to everyone that agrees with me".

Pathetic.

What was it you were saying about those who can't be bothered to educate themselves?

 

If you can't spell X then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

I make a valid thread, even Diablo said it was a good thread, and me and him (I assume him) don't see eye to eye.

If I want personal abuse I'll ask for it in muppet forum. Debate is one thing, abuse quite another. So please, give it a rest.

Thank you.

 

Tell me, do you know what democracy is? Do you realise the crap turnouts in the last elections? And if so, why do you want to reduce the voting populace even further?

 

Democracy comes from Greece - direct translation is people power.

Crap turnouts, well they weren't high but "crap"??

Reduce the numbner of voters? Well, what good is a voter who votes based on irrelevent comments about how a possible PM "dresses, sounds and looks". It's surface and fickle.

So yes, I'd prefer 25% of the population voting if they had a clue what they're doing rather than 90% of which a large percentage haven't a clue.

Quality not quantity. Voting is not about "sticking a pin in a map".

Apologies in advance for any typing errors.

 

Also, not reduce.

I want to educate. Do you not feel in the slightest bit embarrassed when people justify their vote because they don't like, for example, how a politician talks?!??!?!?!

It's beyond ignorant.

 

Senior_AP, you may not believe it from my short-tempered replies but I appreciate the principle of your idea to improve the quality of voters. I just think it's appallingly thought-out. It reminds me of systems 100-200 years ago, where women can't vote as they didn't go to school, and the commoners can't vote as they didn't either. So you end up with a government voted in by the landowning elite, and following principles to enrich themselves and to hell with everyone else.

Why don't you just propose better political education in schools, and higher airtime given to manifestos in the year approaching an election? Instead of banning people from X, Y, Z just as they don't match up to your own personal standards of education.

 

Valid, agreed. "how" this works is open for debate, the whole point of this forum.

The principle is my argument, how it's done - well, there are people better suited to answer that. I hope, by my first post of the thread you saw it was a jokey thread with a serious undertone.

I didn't really mean that the message "THICKO" etc etc would pop up on the screen.....

Make Politics mandatory as some sort of study at school? Maybe, yeah. Problem is the majority of voters that are now out of school. Joe public, who, to be honest is what my problem is.

Voting by sticking a pin in a map type thing.

Glad we're back on to the debate now Brendan, getting heated is fun but not too much!!

 

You can take this as a personal criticism, or you can take it as a criticism against the A-level syllabus. I don't aim it anywhere, as I don't know where it should go: I've never met you or seen what you studied. But the reason for my short shrift is that I'm genuinely disappointed that after two years of study of the subject, you couldn't come out with a slightly better original proposal.

I worked in ex-communist countries for 6 years, so I'm not too keen on the idea of limiting voter rights.

 

I'm not suggesting we limit voter rights - I want a system where voters are effective and less random as they are now.

 

I Understand what Senior AP is saying. "Blind" voting because he looks like a nice person, or because he's labour or conservative etc. Without any real thinking on what they are voting for.

It would be interesting to do an experiment on the public masses like the following:

A vote, like any other but with a difference - Instead of candidates and parties being listing on the ballot paper - the policies and adenda being listed instead. Then the person has to vote to which the agree or like the most - not knowing which person or party they are voting for!

Rules out the need for testing etc...stupid people won't be able read it anyway! Although would be widely open to spin and PR tactics.

I wonder what the result would be?

 

"I wonder what the result would be"?

.....vastly different to what it is now I'm sure of that.

Good post.