Time to end the universal right to vote?

[dell12]

Going on from another thread about prisoners having the right to vote, I was thinking that perhaps we should end the universal right to vote.

 

Far too many people don't know who or what they are voting for. Many simply vote for who their families have voted for, with little thought about the policies or people involved. It's a sort of tribal voting in that many always vote for the same party simply because it's what they've always done.

 

What I propose instead is a test (set independently and taken by everyone before each election) which you have to pass before you can vote. The test requires you to have a basic understanding of what parties stand for and what their main policies are. The whole point of the test is to raise the level of understanding of what you are voting for so you would be encouraged to look up and research answers.

 

There would be no minimum voting age, if you can pass the test, you can vote.

 

Thoughts?

[BritPat]

Would you pass the test that you advocate?

 

The essential differences between Lib Lab and Con if you please?

[chem1st]

Now we have the internet, it is possible for everybody in the UK to set aside an hour of the week to vote. Rather than have MPs vote for us.

 

Like family fortunes but on a national scale.

 

We asked 60 million people, do you think we should legalise weed.

 

'Yes', our survey says 22

'No', our survey says 17

'It already iz legals innit man' 33

'Heaven no, think of the children!' Our survey says er errrrrr.

[dell12]

Would you pass the test that you advocate?

 

The essential differences between Lib Lab and Con if you please?

 

It's not so much about being 'clever', it's more about making the effort to know what you're voting for.

 

The differences between the three are ever more marginal I'd agree, it's still no excuse not to know what they stand for however.

[melthebell]

t's still no excuse not to know what they stand for however.

 

thats all bnp supporters away from voting then?

[BritPat]

It's not so much about being 'clever', it's more about making the effort to know what you're voting for.

 

The differences between the three are ever more marginal I'd agree, it's still no excuse not to know what they stand for however.

 

Agreed. A fair impartial culturally neutral test will never ever be agreed on unfortunately.

 

You will find yourself at the sticky end of an allusion to Platonic democracy.

[BritPat]

thats all bnp supporters away from voting then?

 

So perhaps you can dazzle us all with your insight re the Political Landscape?

 

The substantive differences between Lib Lab and Con if you please?

 

Perhaps you would prefer to declare yourself unfit to vote instead?

[123456A]

The manifesto for each party is now available on line for anyone who wishes to scrutinise the individual policies before they vote.

You have no right to take away the individual's right to vote - especially after the history our ancestors went through to gain that right.

We should not be testing the voters, instead we should be appraising the politicians to provide proof that they have met their proposals within a reasonable time frame. Pay should be apportioned accordingly.

Oh, no, that's how the rest of the work force have to operate... politicians seem to be exempt.

[melthebell]

So perhaps you can dazzle us all with your insight re the Political Landscape?

 

The substantive differences between Lib Lab and Con if you please?

 

Perhaps you would prefer to declare yourself unfit to vote instead?

 

awwww hit a spot did it?

[melthebell]

the thing is with this topic,

 

where do draw the line?

who gets the right to decide?

 

its the thin end of the wedge on the way to the nazi police state, declaring who can and cant choose the leaders and indeed at the fat end of the edge what they vote for