Do you think we should have some form of test to determine the right to vote?

Question

Universal franchise was one of the greatest achievements of society but do you think that this has allowed people who are ignorant or limited in their ability to understand the legislative process and the nature of government and politics to hold too much of a sway over who gets into power? Do you think that people who lack the critical faculties to discern what is opinion from fact in the media and then make their own mind up should be allowed to exercise the same rights are those who do make a considered choice in who to vote for? Has this created a fascistic society where the ignorant minority, who hold the swing votes, impose their will upon the intelligent and articulate majority?

Answer 1

you pose an interesting question. it is not knew as you are aware. it would mean assessing every person in the country at every election, local and national+referenda( because conditions improve and the well become ill)to decide on their entitlement to vote. who decides who can vote and why. it would be very expensive to implement and it would face huge opposition in the courts of human rights

Answer 2

First I think there should be some form of suitability test for politicians. They should be at least 40 years old with at least 15 years experience in industry. We might then get politicians who have some practical knowledge of how the real world works. This would give voters a real choice of real people.

Then we would require an eligibility for voters who should have a responsibility level rather than a rights level that could be gained by service to the community or a level of employment or some level of education which has a measure of knowing what actually happens when politicians open their mouths.

The key is "Rights" can only be gained when "Responsibilities" are taken on board by the individual and that should especially mean Voters who can influence what happens to those who live, work, pay taxes and generally support those less fortunate.

Answer 3

What we should do is lower the age for the right to vote. I.e 16 years old. That would be better, so that Left wing teachers and college lecturers can poison the youth about how evil the British were / are. How about only letting civil servents have the vote, so when Tony Blair creates another 300 000 government jobs such as advertised in the Gaurdian - 'Out reach workers', 'School Crossing Manager', 'Muslim, Bi - Sexual, Disabled fund seekers', all on £30K, they will all vote for dear Tony again, get whacking great pensions as a reward.
Opinion can arrive from fact, an example being in easy terms - Man Utd win alot of matches so in my opinion they are a good team. The problem is many disullusioned intelligent people refuse to vote, leaving the sway with 'do - gooders' who would rather be ruled by Brussells / think we should help a family claim asylum who has travelled through 10 developed countries to get here and sponge off me the tax payer who can't even afford his own pension because I am paying for the bloody Civil Servents whacking great pensions. I personally think we should vote on everything. For example should we go to war in Iraq? No, that will get us no where, cost an absolute fortune and create more radical Islamics. Do you think we should let in 10 000 Polish workers? ( thanks for the lie - more like 600 000) No, where are they going to live and what strains will they and their family put on schools / hospitals / and basic infrastructure. Do you think we should have a vote on our involvement in the EU? etc..
Just my opinion.

Answer 4

Great question. Yes I think there should be a test before people are given the vote. It worries me the number of stupid people out there that can vote. A lot of people read the Daily Fascist and believe all the rubbish it spouts about immigrants etc and are incapable of making a reasoned argument.

Answer 5

I think a better idea would be to award people a number of votes based on their contribution to the country.
This could be determined by, for example, qualifications, amount of personal income tax paid over the past year etc.
Unskilled, unqualified and people on benefits would get 1 vote.
at the other end of the scale someone might get 5 votes

Answer 6

No!People lost there lives so we could all vote who's to say the most intelligent person has more rights than the least intelligent also who would oversee these tests the government perhaps??

Answer 7

Excuse me but I wont beat around the bush with you...
Everyone over 18 who is a citizen has a right to vote the person in that they think would make a good representative of them...noone else...THEM... The person who actually gets into power has to remember, it is the ordinary citizen who voted for them that got them there...(so if you cut down the votes in any way, it will affect who gets into power)....Leave well enough alone, I say.......(and I am just a "Joe Blow" from Down Under, but I ain't...stupid !!....)

Answer 8

Yes, absolutely correct. It would certainly force politicians to step up to the plate, knowing that they can't win votes with glad-handing the 'common folk.' They would be forced to answer the true issues, and EARN the presidency, instead of WINNING it.

Answer 9

Yes but if we did that then we would have to do the same for the right to have kids, coz lets face if your to nuts to vote then you shouldn't breed. We should also test the arseholes we are voting for.

Answer 10

Don't even bother with voting. Bush and all presidents get elected by THIS secret and evil group that is in control of everything for way too long!...
http://www.rense.com/general58/suspre.htm