Independent++ : comments [Matthew's Journal]

Well, that's a reasonable position to take, but I don't see on the one hand how you (i.e. "one") can bang on about the inequities of FPTP while on the other requiring some kind of filter of intelligence/knowledge in order that the true views of the people not be reflected from the ballot box to the legislature.

How would you feel if the line was arbitrarily drawn above you and you were consequentially disenfranchised? It's an arbitrary line after all - you've just said "main issues" - your main issues are almost certainly very different from the one which decided the way I'd cast my vote this time. So what if the only thing which came above my horizon was an irrational fear of being taken over by Europe or swamped by immigrants?

Let me put it another way. A lot of people were pissed off when we went to war on the basis of government leaders who said "Trust us - we know what we're doing, and we believe that what we're doing is in your best interests, and we know more than you do". Isn't what you're proposing pretty much the same thing, with a line drawn in a different place?

[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]

No. Because I'm not proposing a test one can fail. I'm proposing that it be very much like the driving theory test, only much much shorter. So the questions and answers will be made publically available (along with which answer belongs to which party/MP) at the time when the election is announced / manifestos are released. You could also have as many goes at sitting the thing as you liked, free of charge. So all my test requires one to do is to take the half an hour(?) to memorise the answers for your party. In fact, I wouldn't be against making it open book - if you're organised enough to write down / cut out the answers and take them with you to the polling booth then good on you. It's not really an intelligence test at all, it's a "can't be arsed" test, or a "has the faintest idea what these parties actually believe nowadays" test.

If your irrational fear about Europe being swamped by immagrants was that great, it could probably spur you on to learn and remember some trivia about the anti-immagrants party for 5 minutes, which in turn might give you a broader idea of the issues for the next election.

Obviously it may be possible to think of edge cases who should be entitled to vote, but are not capable of answering four simple open book questions. In which case there should be an exemption committee to deal with them on a case to case basis. But I can't think of any myself.

(I don't think this would actually work, because it's so open to abuse, or to skewing whole campaigns until they become soundbites on the four issues chosen by the government. But I think in a hypothetical situation it's not a bad idea.)

[link] [parent] [reply]

In a democracy, everyone is entitled to vote, on whatever basis they see fit, be that "who the Sun editorial said to vote for", "the party with the prettiest logo", "the party on the top of the ballot paper", or "the party who closest represents my views". Certainly, it would be better if everyone went for the last option, but democracy doesn't give you the option of trying to enforce this. As someone once said "democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others".

[link] [parent] [reply]

Err, to clarify: I agree that it would be better if everyone thought carefully about who to vote for, but I don't agree that we should attempt to impose this on people.

[link] [parent] [reply]

In a democracy, everyone is entitled to vote, on whatever basis they see fit

I really can't see how that assertion flows from the meaning of "democracy".

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25 1
26	27	28	29	30	31

Matthew's Journal

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

October