5 ms·
I did ponder over this myself in recent weeks. I wondered whether there should be a age limit on votes, whether votes should be weighted, and even wondered whet
by laumars 10y ago
I did ponder over this myself in recent weeks. I wondered whether there should be a age limit on votes, whether votes should be weighted, and even wondered whether there should be a quick multiple choice test that you have to pass before voting. Unfortunately the first two points go against the point of democracy - even if it might feel unfair to those are the greatest impacted by large demographics of people who are least affected but have strong opinions.
The entrance exam idea is a little more complex though. The idea came about because I was frustrated by the number of people I'd spoken to who voted for a particular campaign while admitting they didn't really follow the campaign but just wanted "change". I saw it with a lot of UKIP supporters who hadn't read their manifesto. I also saw it with the EU referendum with friends that were unaware of any of the "Brexit" arguments but voted out anyway. I think it's weird - in fact borderline dangerous - to use ones vote to decide on a topic which one has intentionally chosen not to educate one's self on. However how do you test that one is informed without biasing the ballot? I think that could be an impossible challenge - and even if it was possible, it would be too easy to abuse at some point further down the line. So that eliminates that possibility as well.
Giving everyone an equal vote is the fundamental principle of democracy. And as much as we might complain about biases from specific demographics skewing the outcome, be that the older generation, younger generation, politically literate, racist, socialist, or whatever; we just have to live with the results. After all, as much as I might disagree with some agendas, there's others I agree with which I'm sure other demographics detest on principles that are as reasoned as the arguments I consider to be true. Such is the nature of individuals.
- executesorder66 10y agoI like your idea of a test before hand. Every voter is required to write a test on the matter being voted on. And then their vote is weighted on the marks they got for the test. That way people who have no idea what they are voting for have little say in the matter. And the people who really care about the issues will make sure they know how their vote will affect things, and they get a greater say in the matter.
- MichaelGG 10y agoAnd how do you grade the test? Certainly if there was objective criteria for what would happen in this case (In/Out), there'd be no need for a vote at all! On top of that, why shouldn't someone be able to vote on the basis of purely not wanting to be in the EU? Or voting with someone based on their perceived moral value? Or any other criteria? I'm hardly pro-democracy, but this doesn't seem like a democratic solution.
- executesorder66 10y ago> And how do you grade the test? Certainly if there was objective criteria... It would have to be on whatever objective facts are available. But in situations like this that could be rather difficult. > on the basis of purely not wanting to be in the EU? IMHO making big decisions based purely on your feelings is always a bad idea. > but this doesn't seem like a democratic solution It's not democratic at all. But I'm just throwing around ideas for interest's sake. Until a provably better system comes around, I'd choose to live in a democratic country.
- corobo 10y ago> Every voter is required to write a test on the matter being voted on Meaning less people would show up to vote due to the time/effort.
- WalterBright 10y agoA good system would be based on the idea that everyone I don't agree with is not allowed to vote.