Senior_AP

After a "debate" with a friend last night over the football and copious amounts of beer in a dirty smoke filled pub we discussed various options of voting systems (first past the post and its alternatives).

A point raised was the "reason" people vote for who they do. It seems to me that an alarming amount of people are voting "blind". Placing votes and not really knowing "why" they are voting as they are. When you see news reporters stopping people in the street and asking who they will vote for, judging by there answers it seems to me that an alarming amount of people haven't a clue.

"I'll vote for Blair wont I, Howard talks too posh for my liking"

"Labour, cos Hague a short bald bloke"

etc etc....


So, suggestion:

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".


Discuss!!

darts_aint_sport

Are you saying intelligent ex-convicts should be allowed to vote but hardworking factory labourers whose dogs aren't all barking shouldn't?

Dream Weaver

You could have watched it at home

Senior_AP

lol. That was a little joke. We were in the non smoking section but I still stunk like a dog end when I got home.

Senior_AP

No, I'm simply making an idea as to make sure votes are true and not random.

Anyone can vote as long as they show they have understanding in exactly what it is they are doing.

davegtt

Its a good point though, I think its down to trust, people would like to see blair in so they vote labour, some dont trust him so they vote for the opposition, the opposition being tories some dont like the leader and dont think he could be trusted so they vote for the 3rd choice libs.... any other party people are probably voting for something THEY believe in i.e. BNP, the 1's whose dogs aint barking vote for monster raving loonies

Senior_AP

I wouldn't be surprised if over half the population think there vote is for "Blair" or "Howard" directly.

Clueless. Dumb f$cks affecting the livelihood of people that do understand. If people knew what they were voting for, and how it worked I guarantee results would be very different.

davegtt

tbh I didnt vote this year so I dont give a sh!te its a load of old crock anyhow, not much will change no matter who's in charge

Senior_AP

We see eye-to-eye on alot, but I gotta diagree on this one davegtt.

davegtt

thats fine mate, every1 is allowed to disagree with something if they wish.

Dracoro

Although I appreciate the sentiment behind the idea, the system would be unworkable and a nightmare to administer (you'd have to employ thousands more civil servants to implement this which would cost £££) and if you think it'd be simple to administer then you've failed 'test 1' in political naievety. And what would these questions be? How 'hard' should they be. What is this 'line' that has to be drawn? You know the policy on the NHS but not on defence and know a 'reasonable' amount on education - so do you pass or not? It's almost impossible to draw these lines and the whole thing is undemocratic. For example, WHO sets the questions? the public? the govt? the civil service? etc?

what about the bloke down the road? why should I have any more say than he does just because I know more about the topic? I'm affected by politics differently to him. He faces different issues than I do. He has two kids so the education policy is important and relevant to him, maybe moreso to someone childless and unemployed who's more converned about investment and employement in his local area.

Anyway, all the 'decent' people would give the '10 questions' a go and may or may not pass. The not so decent people will cheat somehow so in the end the desired result may possibly be the opposite of what you desire.

Dracoro

In a way, this is not a bad thing. It means many of the public are happy with the status-quo (despite their crap songs ) and the main political parties are that similar in the whole scheme of things that we only change things when 'we feel like a change'. People come out in large numbers when there's more at stake. If labour said they want to kill all newborn babies and have the police able to shoot & kill anyone if they feel like it, you'll soon see a 100% turnout at the election voting for the opposition!!

Many moons ago just before new labia got in, I dreaded the thought but tbh it's not that bad. On the political compass, there's very little between the main parties. They're all in the middle ground essentially. There's precious few votes in the far left/right in this country which is a good sign.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

I don't know if it's just me having a cold, but have you recently started looking down the nose on people that are 'lesser' than you?

If you have, it's not a very nice stance to take, in my opinion.

Senior_AP

Fo' shizzle my nizzle!!!

Senior_AP

Fundamentals, not specifics.

Regarding the political stance of a party, not questions regarding their manifesto.

Senior_AP

I knew I'd get this type of comment.

You could be a billionaire but if you fail the test, you CANNOT vote.

You could be a person claiming every benefit under the sun, if you pass then you CAN vote.


Please don't "sound bite" me.

davegtt

Good point in theory but what about people are unhappy with the way things are run but there doesnt seem to be an alternative that would change things enough.... what ever happens its impossible to please everybody so there will always be competition but as you said these are regarding their own interests (like your example of the guy with kids and the guy without)

darts_aint_sport

He didn't say poorer, he said 'lesser', or do you equate the two.

Senior_AP

I saw that, I was merely using 2 extreme examples.

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.

You should be concerned to being someone who obviously does understand this.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

You can roll your eyes all you want, it's just an observation (it may be wrong) I've made from reading several of your threads and replies lately.

My stance is that anyone who is an adult should be allowed to vote. It is the only system that is fair and treats everybody as equals (except for the situation where no one is allowed to vote).
As has previously been pointed out; where do you draw the line of who is not allowed and who is?

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

or is it a case of "everybody's equal but some people are more equal than others"?

Diablo

Senior does look down his nose, but lets not let that stand in the way of a potentially good thread.

IMO you should not be allowed to vote if you are:-


Below a certain IQ
Unable to make rational decisions
Ever been found guility of any criminal offence
Not resident in the UK for at least 95% of the time
An assylum seeker
An elected representative of the people (ie, councillors, MSPs, MEPs, MPs)
Unemployed and eligible for state benefit

The last one is likely to be the most controversial, however my reason is simple. If you are not contributing to the good of the UK, you should have no say in how it is run.

D

darts_aint_sport

I kinda agree there, but how do you decide the first two (and arguably for this thread the most important) cases?

Senior_AP

Everybody should be allowed to vote.

I draw the line when people are putting their "X" in a box with no clue why.

The vote is a VERY powerful thing!!

it is taken too lightly. "I'm voting for Blair cos I like his ties" etc etc. Really p!sses me off.

davegtt

I like this idea, any1 whos been claiming unemployment benefits or jobseekers allowences (what ever u want to call it) for more than 6 months cant vote

Senior_AP

No, it isn't.

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.

Diablo

Psychometric testing - been around for years.

Senior_AP

I don't think "IQ" has anything to do with this at all, sorry.

One can understand the reasoning behind a vote and still have a low IQ or be as thick as two short planks.

To have a gun lkicense you need to know about guns....and be responsible with them.

**imo - To have your right to vote you must first demonstrate and have understanding of what it is you are doing.**

Senior_AP

Yes,

If I'm looking at:

Certain criminals.
Chavs.
Socially aggrevating people.
Immigrants that take the ****.
Litter bugs.

I have standards - something lacking these days (imo).

Diablo

How can you say that? You will never know unless you have a really low IQ.