Should we have equal voting rights?

Question

Sorry - asked this before but received no answers..

I believe everyone should be entitled to one vote.
However - I don't see why a Professor of Politics at Oxford should have equal say to a 18 year old crack whore from Nottingham.

Therefore I propose that certain positions gain you a second vote - ie a doctorate, professorship, becoming a barrister - all these would automatically grant you a second vote. Meanwhile - in the interests of equality, every person would be entitled to take a short exam to entitle them to the second vote. It would be a basic test of simple british politics, history and geography. If you pass the simple test proving your understanding of how this country works, you get your second vote. The exam could be offered to 6th Form students as standard and also arranged in local libraries/church halls for others who wish to gain their extra vote.

More fair?.... Discuss!

I'm glad people feel strongly about this - but some don't seem to understand my point. Everyone would have the option for a second vote - you would just have to show a little knowledge. Someone who understands the complexity of international politics, british history, international monetary values and economics is going to be far better placed to judge the merits of various parties than a person with no knowledge at all. Therefore, if you can at least prove you understand basic politics and economy, you also gain the second vote....

Answer 1

No no no, one vote only. Any more is just cheating!

Answer 2

No, sorry, because what you're arguing is that the people you deem "more qualified" should have (more of) a say in the creation of the government. Problem is, how do you decide who's more qualified? The "simple test" would still be hotly debated, and would either be meaningless (i.e. too easy) or discriminatory. Remember, not all people can read; not all people have the benefit of good educations; not all people have the benefit of a broad base of "knowledge." BUt that doesn't mean that their interests shouldn't be equally represented in government. Otherwise, what you have is the political elite who have OFFICIAL power to RULE over the poor, uneducated, etc. You implicitly are arguing that they would rule in the best interest of all of the masses, not just in their own interest. But certainly your experience with Monarchy has taught you that that's not always the case, and the foundational "liberal" philosophers of Hobbes, Mill, Locke, Jefferson and Madison (in the US)etc. taught that all voices need to be heard equally to ensure that the self-interests of one group are not allowed to run amok over everyone else.

That's why a "republican" form of government works -- you have MPs who are elected to make decisions for the populous. Each person has an equal ability to elect the MP, but that person must be trusted to use his education, training, experience, knowledge, and judgment to decide what's best for his (or her) constituency.

So, rather than having the effect of creating second-class citizens, I think the parliamentary system helps to alleviate those "crack whore from Nottingham" fears that you have. If the US or UK were a direct democracy (i.e. everyone made every decision by popular vote) then your idea might have _slightly_ (although not much) more traction.

Answer 3

Answering the question that no one wanted to. The idea of some one having more voting power than another person is not correct as it does not necessarily mean that you are more apt to make a decision on a political issue just because your are a University professor or you come from a "good" rich family, it would give more power to a Royal blood person and I am sure that the Royal family are no more intelligent than most of us, it was mainly status and money that got them into university. And last but buy no way least, This system was in force in Northern Ireland until around 1968 and that was one of the main reasons for the conflicts that lasted over 30 years and are still not completely resolved, It is called Human Rights.

Answer 4

My problem with that idea is the assumption that the opinions of a barrister, for example, or anyone passing your test, are worth more than the opinions of an 18 year old crackhead. They are better informed opinions, most likely, but not any more valuable

Your suggestion might have a little more value if we could count on people to exercise their votes for the good of all, but human behavior has proven that is not the case. No matter how hard you try to give 'common' people the extra vote through this test, the result will be a society where the richer and better educated elements of society will wield evermore influence and power.

Answer 5

One vote per person no more no less. Qualifications do not necessitate that a person has the integrity or nous to vote on points of law. You are recommending an elitists society being formed based solely on how intelligent a person is or appears to be ; what about the mentally ill, the autistic, the dyslexic, people for example who are intelligent but cannot communicate on a social and political level because of their condition or these people who have passed YOUR TEST and become mentally incapacitated. Does this disqualify them from your notion of equal voting rights. Your question is a contradiction of your proposal.

How can we be equal if we have to take a test to meet your criteria?

Answer 6

This idea is insane! I live in the US and I can't imagine the politics are drastically different there. A Professor of Politics at Oxford is going to have different needs than an 18 year old crack whore from Nottingham. Different income levels = different taxes and different ways of life = different needs and beliefs. More money and a better way of life DOES NOT make your needs any more important than those who are struggling. I believe in equal rights for all people -- no one should receive special treatment.

Answer 7

This would go in favour off the conservatives or who ever gave higher paid educated jobs better tax breaks as the chances off a crack whore voting is less likely then a oxford professor.

Answer 8

Some of the most intelligent peoplee are idiots.
Intelligence does not guarantee objectivity.
A PHD should not give you an extra vote.
What if some body had a PHD in theology and the vote was for religion in schools,do you think this would be fair to the majority of people?

Answer 9

I think you are talking out of your backside as a job title does not make someone who will make a good decision on voting....
I will explain.... Not everyone are job motivated and might just do a job that pays the bills or may not have to do a job like a barrister as there oartner might be loaded. To do an exam is rubbish as most people vote for who will make them better off and not how that government operates in every aspect of british politics.

Ops. looks like no ten points for me

Answer 10

Maybe an 18 year old crack whore from Nottingham deserves more right to vote because its government that put her there in the first place.

She probably is hooked on crack because of an illegal immigrant that came over and cant be bothered to get a job. He probably thought "Hey, I can claim free benefits and earn money tax-free by selling drugs to silly young girls".

But who let him over here? Oh yea thats right - the stupid government.

Answer 11

You simply can't have any section of society having more than one vote. That is not democracy I also think that a lot of people don't bother to vote anyway and this would very probably include your 'crack whores from Nottingham'.

Rather than more votes for the educated it would be better to remove the vote from certain people. At one time you could not vote if you were insane but I don't think that happens now. Even prisoners, I understand, are to be given the vote. I think this is quite wrong but I can only assume the Government thinks that they will get the prison vote. These points are arguable I know but, all in all the franchise, as it stands is fair and democratic.