2020 US General Election

[Letters]

But the fact is it is a contradiction to your thoughts, in a liberal democratic society it is not for the voter to prove they are worthy of the vote, it is for those who seek to be our representatives to prove that they are producing something that is worthy of being voted for.
There is no requirement for a government to put a plebiscite to the electorate, so when they decide to do so, the burden is on them to inform the electorate not for the electorate to inform themselves and show in an arbitrary test that they have understood.

That may all be true but it's not really working is it? There's a growing feeling that none of them are worth voting for.
The way they "informed" the electorate during the EU Referendum was to lie about everything. On both sides. You can't rely on them to inform us.

Similarly when a government submits itself to the judgement of the electorate, it is they who have to prove themselves worthy of re-election not for the voter to prove competent enough to make the choice.

See above. But before an election they do at least publish a manifesto. It is incumbent on the electorate to engage with that.
I don't see what's wrong with the principle of asking someone to show they understand what the main parties are standing for and promising before they cast their vote.
In the context of a referendum, shouldn't people understand the basics of what is being asked.

When you use vox pops as evidence for your argument, you demonstrate only that you have a very narrow understanding yourself. Voting is as much a gut reaction as it is a considered choice and that will be the same no matter how informed you are (or have the capacity to be)

The Joris Bohnson one was me being a bit unkind. That bloke is obviously thick as. And I mostly posted it because I think it's funny. I'm not using it as evidence for my argument. I don't think the argument that it would be a good thing if the electorate were better informed and understood what they were voting for (or against) needs any evidencing.

I have no objection to a more informed electorate, my objection is that a right that is bestowed upon every Adult unless they do something heinous to have it removed, is not a privilege and it’s not something anyone should have to prove their worthiness for.

You're acting like I'm suggesting that someone should have to win the Krypton Factor before they can vote.
Just to be clear, I'm talking about a very simple test which I'd expect basically anyone to be able to pass if they put in a modicum of effort. As I said, you can publish the questions and answers beforehand. I'm not looking to disenfranchise anyone, I'm looking to make people put a bit of thought into their vote. Why is that a bad thing, in principle at least. Obviously you can't make people vote in a sensible way, but getting them to evidence they understand what the party they're voting for stand for doesn't feel like a bad idea in principle, even if implementing it could be problematic.
Why are you saying the test I'm proposing is "arbitrary"? It's the opposite of arbitrary.

[HCZ_Reborn]

That may all be true but it's not really working is it? There's a growing feeling that none of them are worth voting for.
The way they "informed" the electorate during the EU Referendum was to lie about everything. On both sides. You can't rely on them to inform us.


See above. But before an election they do at least publish a manifesto. It is incumbent on the electorate to engage with that.
I don't see what's wrong with the principle of asking someone to show they understand what the main parties are standing for and promising before they cast their vote.
In the context of a referendum, shouldn't people understand the basics of what is being asked.


The Joris Bohnson one was me being a bit unkind. That bloke is obviously thick as. And I mostly posted it because I think it's funny. I'm not using it as evidence for my argument. I don't think the argument that it would be a good thing if the electorate were better informed and understood what they were voting for (or against) needs any evidencing.


You're acting like I'm suggesting that someone should have to win the Krypton Factor before they can vote.
Just to be clear, I'm talking about a very simple test which I'd expect basically anyone to be able to pass if they put in a modicum of effort. As I said, you can publish the questions and answers beforehand. I'm not looking to disenfranchise anyone, I'm looking to make people put a bit of thought into their vote. Why is that a bad thing, in principle at least. Obviously you can't make people vote in a sensible way, but getting them to evidence they understand what the party they're voting for stand for doesn't feel like a bad idea in principle, even if implementing it could be problematic.
Why are you saying the test I'm proposing is "arbitrary"? It's the opposite of arbitrary.

I don’t know whether I should admire your persistence or gently suggest that you might want to get yourself a more fulfilling job (you could say the same about me but my answer would be yes absolutely I do…thus why I’m studying)


It’s arbitrary because as I keep on repeatedly saying to you, this idea of being uninformed is not especially relevant. If it’s a simple test that anyone can pass it’s not really achieved anything to answer your concerns to begin with. Plus people will believe to be true what they want to be true. The reason disinformation works online is not that it appeals to what you think of as stupid people but it hones in on peoples pre-existing biases.

If we are again using Brexit as our paradigm case, the leave campaign actually made very little in the way of specific pledges whatsoever. Different politicians and activists promised different things…and the type of Brexit we have now was a result of the internecine fueding within the Tory party and the back seat driving of people like Farage.

But that’s the difference between the end goal and the act of leaving the EU. Given this was so draped in vagueness this idea that you could have informed the public greater about the consequences actually reflected the dishonesty of the Remain campaign as much as the deliberate opacity of the leave campaign



What would you require people to know in this instance..

Plus people vote the way they do for all kinds of reason, often not directly involved with what or who they are voting for.

Brexit happened because people were dissatisfied and fed up of being taken for granted. Telling people you need to prove you’re worthy of the right of suffrage is not exactly going to make them feel any better.

In fact I think you’d increase the amount of people who might even vote out of spite.

This idea that politicians can’t be trusted to tell the truth so we need to burden the electorate is even if you take away the clear affront to a free people, is an admission of failure by the system.

[HCZ_Reborn]

But basically it all comes down to putting the fault on ordinary people rather than where it lies

In 1997 Sir James Goldsmith formed the referendum party promising an in/out referendum on the EU. It was a wash out…why….because whilst people wanted rid of the Tories because of the divisive bickering and sleaze in the party…economically people were reasonably happy.

Fast forward 18 years. Austerity, immigration etc people are not so happy and people want easy answers offered by UKIP. And what test are you looking for from people then, to realise that 40 years of Labour and Conservative governments have sucked the life out of old industrial and tourist communities in the north and midlands…and that everything is not going to be solved with the wave of a magic wand. Again people will believe to be true, what they want to be true and what they want to be true is not that there are no easy answers, no instant oven ready panacea and that tough choices and trade offs always have to be made

Well you can have the best informed electorate in the world and people won’t accept that, on the left it will be blame the super rich and the establishment, on the right it will be blame immigration, the establishment etc


People might tell you what they think you want to know in a (yes I’m going to say it again) Arbitrary test but it doesn’t tell you what their motivations are.

And let’s be fair the people weren’t wrong, the status quo did let them down with prizing short term incentives over sustainability….even if the alternative are people lying to them…they figure there’s at least a chance of something changing.

And that’s the problem, With Brexit, with Trump…never an attempt is made to understand the reasoning of people who vote these ways…just attempts to erect barriers to them which ultimately will prove futile because of that failure to understand

[HCZ_Reborn]

To be honest I think I’m done, you’re not going to agree that the type of test you’re proposing won’t solve anything, that you’re pointing blame in the wrong direction (and yes blame is key because whether you intend it to be or not the potential of denying anyone the vote in a democratic country is a punishment)

The system of incentives needs to change in politics for a start. We should be paying politicians more but with the explicit agreement that they do not do second jobs. There needs to be a requirement that they have worked outside of politics for at least ten years (kids of 21 becoming MPs with no life experience helps no one). And it’s the politicians themselves who need to pass rigorous assessment in order for them to prove that they are worthy of representing us.
The rules on potential conflicts of interest need to be stricter and carry with them potential criminal penalties for disregarding them, the same needs to be the case for deliberately disseminating disinformation.
They need to trust the people to be able to hear uncomfortable truths. The civil service needs to be reformed to do away with the fusty old boys network of permanent secretaries….and financial incentives need to come to offer roles to people of vision and innovation, who will serve under any government but will no longer be beholden to impossible promises.

I’m not sold on term limits for MPs and the executive because it creates the potential for what the Americans call the lame duck session in congress (between the election and the beginning of January in their case) but neither am I dead set against it.


All of this is far more preferable to telling people they have to earn what should be a guaranteed right in a Democracy. That’s not some shibboleth, it’s the underpinning of a free society

[Letters]

To be honest I think I’m done, you’re not going to agree that the type of test you’re proposing won’t solve anything

I don't know if it will - nor do you. Has it ever been tried?
You said I have a need to be right about things, but you're the one insisting you're very very right about everything and I don't understand anything. You're not providing any evidence for your claims. You're the one not giving an inch and repeatedly misrepresenting what I'm actually saying, despite my repeated clarifications.

that you’re pointing blame in the wrong direction

It's not about blame. It's about fixing a problem. I don't think you disagree that it would be a good thing if "the people" were better educated. It might not lead to more informed decisions but it couldn't hurt if people understood what they were voting for, or against. I'm not disagreeing that it's up to the powers that be to inform people, it's just not realistic to think they're going to. It's not actually in their interest to.

I don't disagree with any of your other proposed changes. And there should be easier ways to kick out MPs who are not doing a good job or governments who are not doing what they promised.

All of this is far more preferable to telling people they have to earn what should be a guaranteed right in a Democracy.

I don't see it as an either/or.
And, again, I am not proposing a high barrier to entry. Just a very basic high level understanding of what the parties are promising to deliver. And the questions being published in advance. If you can't be arsed reading that then on what basis are you voting?

[HCZ_Reborn]

Honestly this is not a productive use of my time.

It absolutely is about blame, you’ve identified what you see as a problem and you’ve chided me for providing no evidence for my objections to your solution.

My objections are pretty clear

- People shouldn’t have to prove they deserve the vote in a free society

- There are multiple factors that determine voting behaviour, but whether you want to admit it or not your argument comes down to we are getting stupid outcomes because too many ignorant people who don’t know what they are voting for can vote without having to demonstrate this. 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.

Does knowing what the council of ministers, the European Commission, The European Parliament do guarantee anything other than gaining a bit of a-level politics and philosophy level learning make it likely that you will make a wise decision. 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 an either or whether you’re prepared to acknowledge it or not

There is a reason we call politicians public servants, they are there to serve. Because you’ve identified a “problem” which at this point I’m not even sure you can define, suggested a reason for the problem without evidence and come up with a solution that would cause more problems than it solves

[Letters]

Honestly this is not a productive use of my time.

Are you new here?
I don't come here to be productive.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Well it’s just nicer than to say I’m pissing into the wind

But suffice to say your proposal presupposes there is a right and wrong way of voting and therefore it makes the act of voting less one of choice and more an intelligence test in of itself.

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?.


The potential for myriad unintentional consequences is too great to fix a problem that can’t be objectively defined - and that is when it comes to making a choice of who or what to vote for is there such a thing as a right or wrong choice and who would make that determination.


Is there any reason to believe being better informed makes you a more wise decision maker. 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 ?

There is no test to filter out emotional reasoning, gut instinct and a big motivation for a lot of people to vote…hatred for the other side.

People are prone to cognitive dissonance and cutting off their nose to spite their face.


And often to blame voters (as Remainers do) is the failure to imagine how other people think and reason, rather than make crude assertions of stupidity and racism in order to make themselves feel smarter

[Letters]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

But suffice to say your proposal presupposes there is a right and wrong way of voting

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.

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.

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.

[HCZ_Reborn]

No what I’ve said is that either you need rigorous test that would risk disenfranchising people or the test would be absolutely pointless as a way of determining whether people were informed on a meaningful enough level to vote one way or the other.

And no there is no responsibility that comes from voting, no one not you or I or anyone else has to justify how we voted. This is why we have a secret ballot, there is zero obligation on the voter. You argue there should be, and I argue that this is an affront to Democracy. Democracy is the choice, and it’s not for any authority to decide whether you are suitably aware of what you are voting for.

The wrong choice does not exist in Democracy (neither does the right choice) there’s no objective evaluation. You can say what you think is the right choice, you can say you’ve got the information that backs that argument…but it’s still just an opinion.

How do you even know how many people who googled information about the EU had voted? The Google search was in response to the news that we’d voted to leave the European Union. They may have been remain voters who wanted to know what this meant in real terms or non voters.

The most politically uninformed don’t tend to vote to begin with, because they have little or no interest in the political process.

Why on earth would you have a test based on a party manifesto….have you read a party’s election manifesto from cover to cover, plus would this demonstrate knowledge or rote learning?.

Knowing what the Tories tax pledges are, won’t give you any greater understanding of whether they will benefit you individually.

Imagine there was a referendum on capital punishment resulting from a future government leaving the ECHR, what knowledge do you need to show then, how the knot of the noose is placed adjacent to the jaw bone of the condemned in order to bring about the hangman’s fracture from the drop,

Or is it purely a judgement call based on whether you believe certain crimes deserve death