Quote:
Originally Posted by
HCZ_Reborn
It absolutely is about blame
Well, I blame the electorate for not bothering to inform themselves and I also blame the government for not keeping their promises and being so inept that people increasingly feel disconnected from it all and apathetic about voting.
Quote:
People shouldn’t have to prove they deserve the vote in a free society
OK. Well, a reasonable and even noble assertion. It's just one I'd challenge.
Voting is a right but it also carries some responsibility. There is already a recognition that not everyone can vote because people need to attain a certain level of maturity. The fact it's 18 is pretty arbitrary. Why can't under 18s vote? They can start a family.
Quote:
My argument with Brexit is that it wasn’t possible to know what you were voting for with a Leave vote other than leaving the EU.
Well, sure. It wasn't a vote for anything, it was a vote against something. The analogy I always use is that we were being asked if we wanted to stay put or move house. An obvious follow up question being "well, where are we moving to?". Remain claimed it would be a shack with a leaky roof, Leave claimed it would be a mansion in the sunlit uplands. But as exactly what Brexit looked like wasn't on the table at the time it was impossible to know.
I still think people could have been better educated about what the EU is and what the benefits and drawbacks of membership were though. I don't see how people informing themselves is a bad thing.
Quote:
And if you can’t delineate between knowledge and wisdom, it’s probably why you can’t see why an intelligence test would only achieve lower turnout and less political engagement.
It is interesting that you have accused me of taking a superior or snobbish attitude yet throughout this exchange you have been the one repeatedly claiming that I don't understand anything and how you know far better than me.
And why do you keep talking about intelligence and intelligence tests? This is what I mean by you misrepresenting my argument. I've been very clear that I'm not talking about an intelligence test. You've even said in this conversation that passing exams is not about intelligence. The sort of test I'm proposing would be easy to pass by learning a few simple things by rote. Would it lead to people making better choices at the ballot box? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't see a problem with the principle of asking people to learn a few basics about what the parties are promising before they cast their vote. There are issues around accessibility but I work in an exams business and it's dealt with there.
Quote:
It is an either or whether you’re prepared to acknowledge it or not
It isn't. Again, this is just you stating how very very right you are. But you aren't.
You're saying "politicians should..."
I'm saying "the people should..."
Those aren't contradictory things, you don't have to choose one. Both can be true.
Quote:
Because you’ve identified a “problem” which at this point I’m not even sure you can define
I've defined it pretty clearly. Too many people vote without an understanding of what they're voting for or against.
I regard that as a bad thing.
Quote:
suggested a reason for the problem without evidence
Does the fact that the population of this country are, in general, not that well educated or well informed about issues need much evidencing? There was a surge of people Googling "what is the EU" the day after the Brexit referendum.
Quote:
and come up with a solution that would cause more problems than it solves
Well, that is your claim. But you don't know that. And it seems to be largely based on a misunderstanding of what I'm actually suggesting. You seem to think I'm proposing a rigorous test which would disenfranchise huge swathes of the population. I've been pretty clear that isn't what I'm suggesting. Would my idea cause problems? Probably. But I don't think it would cause a two-tier society. If people can't be arsed to learn basic facts about what the parties are standing for then on what basis are they voting for one of them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HCZ_Reborn
But suffice to say your proposal presupposes there is a right and wrong way of voting
Quote:
Is there any reason to believe being better informed makes you a more wise decision maker.
I'll deal with these two parts together as my answer to both is the same.
There are ways of voting I regard as stupid, but obviously you can't force people to make what I regard as wise decisions. The point is if you don't know what the main parties are promising then on what basis are you voting at all? Being better informed doesn't make you a wiser decision maker. But being uninformed means you are guaranteed to make a poor - or at least uninformed choice. I regard that as a bad thing.
Quote:
Plus by the same argument if a child can pass such a test is there not an argument to be made that they can then vote?
Yes. Although there probably should still be some cut off, but I'd advocate for it being lower.
Quote:
And even if it did and your argument is we can’t trust politicians to inform us correctly, why should we then trust them to test in a fair way?
Because they publish their manifestos and I would suggest any test be based on their contents. And obviously an independent body would set the test. And as I've said a few times now, the questions and answers can be published in advance. I'm seeking to ensure people make an informed choice, or at least make it more likely they do.