mountain_tiger
Smash Champion
Link to original post: [drupal=3410]Politics and voting[/drupal]
Until the last century or so, voting was a privelege endowed generally only to men who owned property. Only in recent times (historically speaking) has the vote been seen as a right to all men and women of adult age.
Obviously this elimination of sexism and the class system in voting is a good thing, but ultimately it's questionable as to whether or not everyone deserves the vote. For instance, I can't help but think that in order to be allowed to vote, you should have at least a basic knowledge of how the country's government and political parties actually work. Take the following statement:
"OMG Gordon Brown was a terrible Prime Minister because he wasn't elected."
Anyone with any idea of British politics will realise that this statement is worthless, because the Prime Minister is NEVER directly elected. Rather, the people elect for the party to represent them, and the members of the party elect who will be Prime Minister. A shocking amount of people seem to think that the system is similar to that of the USA's presidential system.
And then you get people who have NO idea of what policies each individual party has and how they are different from the others. You end up with people saying stuff like, 'Oh, I voted Liberal Democrats because Clegg is hot', even though appearance is hardly top priority when it comes to deciding which party you want to lead parliament.
It seems illogical that someone should be allowed to cast a political vote when they have no idea of who they're voting for, how their vote makes a difference and how parliament actually works. A potential solution would be to have all people legible to vote do a test to examine whether or not they know how the politics of the country work. If they display a reasonable knowledge, then they can vote. If not, then... they won't. It wouldn't be ridiculously hard stuff, just stuff like the composition of parliament, what each political party stands for, basically the bare minimum of what's necessary to cast a reasoned and logically sound vote.
This probably has some flaws in practice, such as how you would conduct it and potential cost, but the idea itself could work in theory, and you wouldn't have as many people voting for someone for completely the wrong reason.
Would it work, though?
Until the last century or so, voting was a privelege endowed generally only to men who owned property. Only in recent times (historically speaking) has the vote been seen as a right to all men and women of adult age.
Obviously this elimination of sexism and the class system in voting is a good thing, but ultimately it's questionable as to whether or not everyone deserves the vote. For instance, I can't help but think that in order to be allowed to vote, you should have at least a basic knowledge of how the country's government and political parties actually work. Take the following statement:
"OMG Gordon Brown was a terrible Prime Minister because he wasn't elected."
Anyone with any idea of British politics will realise that this statement is worthless, because the Prime Minister is NEVER directly elected. Rather, the people elect for the party to represent them, and the members of the party elect who will be Prime Minister. A shocking amount of people seem to think that the system is similar to that of the USA's presidential system.
And then you get people who have NO idea of what policies each individual party has and how they are different from the others. You end up with people saying stuff like, 'Oh, I voted Liberal Democrats because Clegg is hot', even though appearance is hardly top priority when it comes to deciding which party you want to lead parliament.
It seems illogical that someone should be allowed to cast a political vote when they have no idea of who they're voting for, how their vote makes a difference and how parliament actually works. A potential solution would be to have all people legible to vote do a test to examine whether or not they know how the politics of the country work. If they display a reasonable knowledge, then they can vote. If not, then... they won't. It wouldn't be ridiculously hard stuff, just stuff like the composition of parliament, what each political party stands for, basically the bare minimum of what's necessary to cast a reasoned and logically sound vote.
This probably has some flaws in practice, such as how you would conduct it and potential cost, but the idea itself could work in theory, and you wouldn't have as many people voting for someone for completely the wrong reason.
Would it work, though?
