Poll: Mandatory HSE for people’s right to vote

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

James Ennever:
I Have passed And I am at University perusing A combined degree in bachelor of fine arts with a game design major, no need to insult my intellect as I feel this should be a debate not a flame war. I know asking a level off civility is a lot to ask on the internet but as the gentlemen and women we are, we have been raised better than to call each person who has an opinion an extremist(Except Neo Nazis hate on them all you want)

The reason that people are critisising your intellect is that you have proposed a voting system based on achieving an arbitrary level of education, yet you display basic spelling and grammatical errors in nearly every sentence you have written; mistakes that would be considered beneath the threshold of intelligence for the voting restriction you have proposed. It doesn't invalidate your argument, but it compromises your position somewhat.

The main issues that have been stated against your proposal is that academic education and certification have very little bearing on a person's political knowledge, which is what you are trying to gauge. Implementing this in reality would just lead to rediculous situations.

Take Sir Alan Sugar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sugar (I don't know if you know him, but he's big in the U.K.) A self made millionaire, board member/chairman of several important technology companies, and was a consultant to the Labour government and has been granted a peerage, making him a Lord. So Baron Sugar holds the power to vote/veto laws in and out of Parliament, a political power and priviledge shared by only a few hundred people out of the entire population of the British Isles. but because he never finished school (he left at 16, and holds no other academic qualifications) under your scheme he wouldn't be allowed to vote!
That is a single example of how many smart and politically active people may not have academic accreditation, and conversely many politically ignorant people can have high school and university education, but not really take an interest in political groups. It shows the unfair reality your change would create.

Secondly, the whole point of democracy is that everyone gets to vote, unless they think they are turnips or are being held in one of Her Majesty's luxury private hotels (prison) By putting an arbitrary limit on who can vote you are taking democracy back to the Feudal age. (which was a lot less fair for lower classes than Age of Empires II depicts)
Taking away votes from the least privileged in society will mean that politicians will ignore their needs, and they will be left to rot in the streets. Our only defence against politicians blowing the entire budget on themselves and their friends is that we control their jobs, so they must keep us happy. If we lose our power to vote then we lose all our rights as human beings, as they can (and will) be taken away from us, to suit those in power.

The problem with your proposal is a fundamental one, we cannot restrict anyones vote in society, because as soon as we do they will be ignored by the law and then lose their rights, they will be restricted and ignored, and no one will stand up for them, because in order to accomodate for their needs, we would have to sacrifice our own luxuries, and humans are dicks like that. That is why votes are so important, that is why women killed themselves to promote the Suffragette movement, why the American Civil Rights movement focused on the right to vote. Without a vote you don't have a voice in society, and without a voice you cannot scream out when they cut your limbs off and leave you in the corner to bleed out.

James Ennever:

lacktheknack:

James Ennever:

But after college, it makes you ess likely to vote for the tits and puppies party.
I like you're Idea but then they would only have a stereotypical veiw of each party that the greens would almost surely have the upper hand. "save the trees!" beats sound monitorey managment 99% of the time.

I'm not talking "know your own vote", I'm talking "know everyone".

A question might be something like "Does <candidate> plan to raise or lower corporate taxes?", and it would sample from different popular parties (the tiny independent candidates would be exempt). That way, you have to at least have looked at everyone's platform webpage before voting. It's not particularly hard, and I don't see how it would give Greens an advantage (or how the Tits and Puppies party fits in to that at all).

Tits and puppies solve everything :)
That would mean some prior knoledge is required, nd in australia it is non optional to vote.
the greens have an advantage down in austalia because they use the internet and other mediums to advertise at schools I'll have you know. This means that it is ingrained in the youth of this country to vote for 100000% of dollars in eco power with no plan to pay for it.

That's not a "Green Advantage", that's "Everyone Else's Missed Opportunity".

And yes, prior knowledge SHOULD be required if you have to vote.

A persons education is an odd thing to assess someone's capability to vote on. I know idiots with degrees and very politically savvy people who probably never made it through secondary school.

If you want to go down this road, you should take a short test every year that assesses how much you know about the party you're going to be voting for. If you fail it then you don't get to vote. I know it's a lot more work than just taking into account someones qualifications. But really, a highschool diploma has nothing to do with your understanding of politics.

I knew two things about politics coming out of secondary school. Jack and shit.

It wasn't until I took an interest that began to learn about it.

I do, however agree that there are a lot of people voting for parties simply because they know a lot of people vote for them and they don't know anything about it themselves. Or because their parents vote for them.

This is what's making the UK a 2 party system. And the US, people vote without any real understanding of who they're voting for and why. Unless you know the candidate you're voting for, and what their policies are. You shouldn't be voting.

Candidus:

Batou667:
Here in the UK the voter turnout is depressingly low. People are mostly uninterested or disenchanted with politics. I can't support anything that would even further remove government from the people.

Here in the UK we have elected aristocracy. We can't choose who runs for which seat from within a party, so it isn't really democratic.

The top politicians inevitably pick people who're similar to them for candidacy; that is to say, the least virtuous, least intelligent, least competent, least moral of a party's members. *That* is the pool we get to vote on every General Election. Those who enter politics to change it from the inside? They hit a glass ceiling, out of sight of most of us.

I won't vote as long as this is the situation, because when you vote, you legitimize the system. You say "this is okay, this works."

We're led by a bunch of dull-eyed, bovine semi-sentients. I wouldn't want these people to organise my sweater drawer, let alone the fucking country.

OT: I'm with the OP. The right to vote should be subject to some sort of test. The fewer going to poll, the better. Hereditary voters are the worst offenders, and I'm certain that intelligence-based limitations would weed many of them out.

But in not voting you're allowing the chance that the worst of the bunch make it in. Which is pretty much what happened when the tories somehow made it into power.

Refusing to vote isn't going to change anything, all it does is mean you have literally no say over who gets in.

Granted the differences between labour and Cons may seem academic with an educated glance. But the things they do differ on, they differ quite vastly.

I'll just say if we make it out of this term without privatising the NHS, I'll call it a narrow escape.

Abandon4093:

-snip-

You and lacktheknack pose a compelling idea, however there is one sort of... loophole. Suppose, for whatever reason, in a system where every member is required to take the test to vote, then vote, a person may purposefully answer the quiz (the issue of how the quiz is written is a different matter entirely) incorrectly, thus skewing the vote. I haven't come up with reasons for why a person would want to do this, but, because it is possible, you must expect it to happen.

On a personal note, I agree that people should at least know the very basics of politics. In my area, I can guess that the only reason our member of parliament was elected was because the words "CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA" were written besides his name on the ballot. I had always thought of him as unfit to serve our people, not for his party, but for his disregard for the population that elected him. His neglect for the community may not have seemed obvious, however it was persistance for his staggeringly long run as member of parliament. Recently, this MP had refused to give a breath test at a drunk driving checkstop, an act that is consider to be just as bad as actually failing the breath test. As a result, he resigned the Conservative party, yet remains as our member of parliament. If what I claimed earlier is true, that people just voted for him based on his party affiliation, that means that we're stuck with him because voters did not have an understanding of Canada's political system and the implications that their vote really has.

Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass. :/

Whoops wrong thread.

Abandon4093:

But in not voting you're allowing the chance that the worst of the bunch make it in. Which is pretty much what happened when the tories somehow made it into power.

Refusing to vote isn't going to change anything, all it does is mean you have literally no say over who gets in.

Granted the differences between labour and Cons may seem academic with an educated glance. But the things they do differ on, they differ quite vastly.

The Conservatives don't know how to manage a welfare system, and Labour don't know how to manage an economy (Look at the patterns going back to before Thatcher's day. Every time the conservatives go out, we're in the black and somewhat stable, but our services are on a shoestring. Every time labour go out, we're neck-deep in debt and wobbling on the brink, and our services are... *still* on a shoestring).

One is as bad as the other. The Lib Dems are even worse. I wanted their Alternative Vote system, but when you've otherwise got them saying they'd kowtow to EU mandates that would destroy our financial sector advantage, and that they'd scrap our military in order to increase overseas aid (what, the bloody fuck?)... Well, suffice it to say that I'm relieved they've done so much harm to their own support base in allying with the Tories as they have. This term has guaranteed that the Lib Dems won't be strong again for another hundred years.

In short, refusing to vote means my conscience is clear. The voting system- and the human garbage we've got to choose from- are not okay. I'll do nothing that implies a belief on my part that their authority is legitimate, or that they are the right people to wield it.

Even putting aside my ethical and principle concerns; taxes go up, retirement goes back, working hours get longer (and the resulting problems- like riots and bad children- get blamed on our dwindling pastimes instead of our soul-grinding 50 hour plus labour exchange), disposable income goes down. These are the constants, no matter who gets in. So why bother?

ON TOPIC,

Rawb0906:

I would like to see someone kind of political awareness test such as the 5 question idea that was posted before but we can't just take away people's right to vote based on their intelligence or ideals.

Why can't you? Why do people have the right in the first place? Isn't it given to them on much more arbitrary grounds than having intelligence appropriate to the task? As far as I'm aware, the full answer regarding why people have the right to vote is: "because all people should... just because... umm, it's not fair otherwise?"

Why isn't it fair? Is it fair when the people making public policy- which is policy I have to live by, because the state's thugs can bring me in for punishment if I don't- are put into their jobs by people who've got the intelligence and political awareness of a loaf of bread?

When you vote, you're responsible for exerting just a little bit of influence on the lives of everybody else in your society. If you don't think that sort of infringing activity demands a small test of aptitude, well fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. But what's your rationale? *Why* is it wrong to take away for a reason that which has been given irresponsibly?

Candidus:

Abandon4093:

But in not voting you're allowing the chance that the worst of the bunch make it in. Which is pretty much what happened when the tories somehow made it into power.

Refusing to vote isn't going to change anything, all it does is mean you have literally no say over who gets in.

Granted the differences between labour and Cons may seem academic with an educated glance. But the things they do differ on, they differ quite vastly.

The Conservatives don't know how to manage a welfare system, and Labour don't know how to manage an economy (Look at the patterns going back to before Thatcher's day. Every time the conservatives go out, we're in the black and somewhat stable, but our services are on a shoestring. Every time labour go out, we're neck-deep in debt and wobbling on the brink, and our services are... *still* on a shoestring).

One is as bad as the other. The Lib Dems are even worse. I wanted their Alternative Vote system, but when you've otherwise got them saying they'd kowtow to EU mandates that would destroy our financial sector advantage, and that they'd scrap our military in order to increase overseas aid (what, the bloody fuck?)... Well, suffice it to say that I'm relieved they've done so much harm to their own support base in allying with the Tories as they have. This term has guaranteed that the Lib Dems won't be strong again for another hundred years.

In short, refusing to vote means my conscience is clear. The voting system- and the human garbage we've got to choose from- are not okay. I'll do nothing that implies a belief on my part that their authority is legitimate, or that they are the right people to wield it.

Even putting aside my ethical and principle concerns; taxes go up, retirement goes back, working hours get longer (and the resulting problems- like riots and bad children- get blamed on our dwindling pastimes instead of our soul-grinding 50 hour plus labour exchange), disposable income goes down. These are the constants, no matter who gets in. So why bother?

Very true, and very well observed. But there is always a worse outcome. And the slow creeping rise of BNP support the last 10 years has seen is a niggling reminder of that. Constantly tapping in the back of my head.

Where everyone with scruples to think as you do and not vote for one of the lesser evils. The really bad parties would find themselves with more and more of the percentage.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't genuinely fear that the BNP would ever get into power. I know not enough people are either as observant as you or as willing to ignore politics on principle. I'm just saying what would actually happen if everyone thought like you.

chadachada123:
If only the top 2% of people (based on IQ or some other measure of intelligence) were allowed to vote, there would be no war.

That said, I don't see barring only high school dropouts from being effective, sadly. An aptitude test, along with a test seeing if you even understand what each candidate supports, would be far more effective.

Whut?
Even if you were to give it to the "top 2%", I wouldn't choose them based on IQ. Aptitude tests count for fuck all. There are people with extremely high IQs that I wouldn't trust with a pair of scissors, let alone the global governing system. I find that people who place a heavy weighting on IQ either don't actually know too much about it or have been told they have high or above average IQs and are ridiculously smug about it because they don't have too much else going on.

More proposed censorship for Australia? Great plan. (sarcasm)

How about letting people have the right to vote? As in they are allowed to vote if they want to, but are not forced into it.

maddawg IAJI:
Uggh no. You can't deny someone their right to vote when they have committed no felonies.

Simple as that. Besides, its not like everyone in Australia votes anyways. The fine for it is non existent and most people just choose to pay the 20 bucks rather then vote. Not to mention that denying their right to vote on the simple grounds that you don't like who they're voting for strikes me as a tad anti-democratic.

I really don't see why you should deny someone the right to vote just because they have committed a felony either. If they have served their time in jail, their crime is, for all purposes legal, repaid. I don't even see the reason for why it should be necessary to disallow criminals to vote from jail.

Colour-Scientist:

chadachada123:
If only the top 2% of people (based on IQ or some other measure of intelligence) were allowed to vote, there would be no war.

That said, I don't see barring only high school dropouts from being effective, sadly. An aptitude test, along with a test seeing if you even understand what each candidate supports, would be far more effective.

Whut?
Even if you were to give it to the "top 2%", I wouldn't choose them based on IQ. Aptitude tests count for fuck all. There are people with extremely high IQs that I wouldn't trust with a pair of scissors, let alone the global governing system. I find that people who place a heavy weighting on IQ either don't actually know too much about it or have been told they have high or above average IQs and are ridiculously smug about it because they don't have too much else going on.

From the studies I'v heard about recently, and my friend who is studying this general thing at the University, a IQ test proves that you are pretty much "good at IQ-tests".
And honestly, who the hell would want a society run by "really smart" but really unethical or uncaring people?

James Ennever:
I used High school equivalent to make it fairer on the non Australians,
I think the way we treat imigrants is mishandeled by ALL sides of politics, greens,labor and liberal all have yet to get a policy that is humane but the greens open door policy is no better, we would end up like america with no control over the flow if ilegal imagration goes unchecked. I am pro imagration, infact it benifits the econamy and as stated previously they are often well educated.
I Have passed And I am at University perusing A combined degree in bachelor of fine arts with a game design major, no need to insult my intellect as I feel this should be a debate not a flame war. I know asking a level off civility is a lot to ask on the internet but as the gentlemen and women we are, we have been raised better than to call each person who has an opinion an extremist(Except Neo Nazis hate on them all you want)

brendonnelly:
Also, as far as I am aware, the Greens have the highest level of University educated members. And I would like to know what your basing the lowly-educated people vote for left field politics on.

They have groomed them from college and they hover around the middle class children like an ice cream van.

My problem with your argument is that you keep using unsubstantiated "facts" to support your argument. I thought a University educated person would know the basics of debate. Stating "they groom them from college" is utter bullshit, because I could turn around and claim something like the added level of education often leads to a stronger sense of ethical responsibility, leading them to the greens.

Hero in a half shell:

James Ennever:
I Have passed And I am at University perusing A combined degree in bachelor of fine arts with a game design major, no need to insult my intellect as I feel this should be a debate not a flame war. I know asking a level off civility is a lot to ask on the internet but as the gentlemen and women we are, we have been raised better than to call each person who has an opinion an extremist(Except Neo Nazis hate on them all you want)

The reason that people are critisising your intellect is that you have proposed a voting system based on achieving an arbitrary level of education, yet you display basic spelling and grammatical errors in nearly every sentence you have written; mistakes that would be considered beneath the threshold of intelligence for the voting restriction you have proposed. It doesn't invalidate your argument, but it compromises your position somewhat.

The main issues that have been stated against your proposal is that academic education and certification have very little bearing on a person's political knowledge, which is what you are trying to gauge. Implementing this in reality would just lead to rediculous situations.

Take Sir Alan Sugar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sugar (I don't know if you know him, but he's big in the U.K.) A self made millionaire, board member/chairman of several important technology companies, and was a consultant to the Labour government and has been granted a peerage, making him a Lord. So Baron Sugar holds the power to vote/veto laws in and out of Parliament, a political power and priviledge shared by only a few hundred people out of the entire population of the British Isles. but because he never finished school (he left at 16, and holds no other academic qualifications) under your scheme he wouldn't be allowed to vote!
That is a single example of how many smart and politically active people may not have academic accreditation, and conversely many politically ignorant people can have high school and university education, but not really take an interest in political groups. It shows the unfair reality your change would create.

Secondly, the whole point of democracy is that everyone gets to vote, unless they think they are turnips or are being held in one of Her Majesty's luxury private hotels (prison) By putting an arbitrary limit on who can vote you are taking democracy back to the Feudal age. (which was a lot less fair for lower classes than Age of Empires II depicts)
Taking away votes from the least privileged in society will mean that politicians will ignore their needs, and they will be left to rot in the streets. Our only defence against politicians blowing the entire budget on themselves and their friends is that we control their jobs, so they must keep us happy. If we lose our power to vote then we lose all our rights as human beings, as they can (and will) be taken away from us, to suit those in power.

The problem with your proposal is a fundamental one, we cannot restrict anyones vote in society, because as soon as we do they will be ignored by the law and then lose their rights, they will be restricted and ignored, and no one will stand up for them, because in order to accomodate for their needs, we would have to sacrifice our own luxuries, and humans are dicks like that. That is why votes are so important, that is why women killed themselves to promote the Suffragette movement, why the American Civil Rights movement focused on the right to vote. Without a vote you don't have a voice in society, and without a voice you cannot scream out when they cut your limbs off and leave you in the corner to bleed out.

Your grammar like the use of the ; at the sentence(A ,or ' if a noun would have surfaced) end is also questionable my friend. Maybe an adult education class is in order?.
I double check everything I type to make sure the syntax is correct and non-pontificated, the least you could do is get back OT.

As I stated in th OP, the turnips still have to vote in our government, It is a non-optional election.

People Have to pass high school in Australian states and territories, It is mandatory, And provided free of charge. common courtesy would have us believe that the least one can and should do is pass. The people with mental impairments in our system are also able, and do pass so the barriers between classes,sex,race and strata are non-existent.

Joccaren:
As an Australian, what needs to happen is not for us to block the lower class, but for us to change things so that everyone knows how to vote, and so that governments with the most funding don't auto-win.

Regulated advertising, where everyone can only advertise as much as the party that advertises the least. Put restrictions on who can be a part of a political party that are better than current ones, have them pick three main promises that they MUST keep that election, or be not allowed to participate in the next election (Exceptions to be made if unexpected circumstances show up. I.E: Another GFC hits and one of those three things would put a large cost on the people.), and allow them to show nothing else to the public.

After that, have an independent company come in and begin funding for 'intelligent voting' classes in all schools, in which students are taught not to just vote for the greens 'cause 'Save the Trees', but how to evaluate which party would best serve them and the country, and then vote based off that. Hell, we have sex ed classes in grade 5. I think it is just as important to know how to cast a proper vote as it is to know how to put on a condom - if not more important.

Honestly though, I'm thinking ATM that if people vote in Greens or Labour again, I'm moving to another country. Whilst whichever country I go to's government will certainly have flaws, it won't screw everyone over as much as they did with that damn carbon tax and their F***ed up schemes that were doomed to fail.

Agreed,if the greens win again......

[iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/35TbGjt-weA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen][/iframe]

James Ennever:

As I stated in th OP, the turnips still have to vote in our government, It is a non-optional election.

People Have to pass high school in Australian states and territories, It is mandatory, And provided free of charge. common courtesy would have us believe that the least one can and should do is pass. The people with mental impairments in our system are also able, and do pass so the barriers between classes,sex,race and strata are non-existent.

I'm not at all informed about the Australian school system, but it seems like the HCE (the certificate you use to determine voting rights) requires students to stay in school until they are 18, and the mandatory ages for leaving school is generally 17 (or less) and a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you want to work in a trade job such as carpentry, plumbing, basically anything construction orientated, but under your law these people who left for perfectly eligible reasons could not vote.

Also, you say it's not racially discriminative, but the statistics state otherwise:

Educationally, fewer Indigenous students attend and finish school than non-Indigenous students. In 2005, the proportion of Indigenous students who completed their secondary education (Year 12 in Australian schools) was 49 per cent, compared with 87 per cent for non-Indigenous students. The academic performance of Australia's Indigenous students is consistently lower than that of non-Indigenous students.
Source: http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/Indigenous_peoples.html

So your proposal will strip 51% of Aboriginal people finishing school in 2005 of their right to vote. Since I do not believe that 51% of what would now be 24/25 year old aboriginals are mouth-breathing imbeciles that cannot comprehend politics, I have to say that it shows that your proposal will discriminate against race.

Surely a better way to combat uninformed voters is to inform them. Maybe have a few mandatory classes when you turn 15 or 16 on politics, so they know the main parties, their main aims and general principles. You said yourself that the Green Party have indoctrinated people through education, so it would be simple to have a few lessons that do the same job, but with politics as a whole.

Okay, while I agree that mandatory voting is ridiculous, taking away people's rights is unjust. I don't know about Australia, but in the US, being illiterate doesn't restrict you from voting. You can request someone to read the ballot for you and help cast your vote. So, why should any other degree of lack of education determine who can vote. The insinuation that their opinions, desires, and needs are not worthy of attention is deplorable frankly.

Furthermore, people drop out of school for various reasons, not all of them being "fuck this shit." Some are forced to drop out to find work to help support their families, others have to drop out due to medical reasons, such as pregnancy or accidents. Why punish them?

Loner Jo Jo:
Okay, while I agree that mandatory voting is ridiculous, taking away people's rights is unjust. I don't know about Australia, but in the US, being illiterate doesn't restrict you from voting. You can request someone to read the ballot for you and help cast your vote. So, why should any other degree of lack of education determine who can vote. The insinuation that their opinions, desires, and needs are not worthy of attention is deplorable frankly.

Furthermore, people drop out of school for various reasons, not all of them being "fuck this shit." Some are forced to drop out to find work to help support their families, others have to drop out due to medical reasons, such as pregnancy or accidents. Why punish them?

True but most are t the later, plus if you're pregnant in high school, you have done something so stupid that I would not want them to be able to choose a government. Unless you live in the third world or Kazakhstan then there really is no excuse to be pregnant before you are fiduciary ready to support a child.
Victims of sexual violence would I hope be excluded from the HSE rule but no others.
Lets not get into the abortion debate either but that is another option.

Hero in a half shell:

James Ennever:

As I stated in th OP, the turnips still have to vote in our government, It is a non-optional election.

People Have to pass high school in Australian states and territories, It is mandatory, And provided free of charge. common courtesy would have us believe that the least one can and should do is pass. The people with mental impairments in our system are also able, and do pass so the barriers between classes,sex,race and strata are non-existent.

I'm not at all informed about the Australian school system, but it seems like the HCE (the certificate you use to determine voting rights) requires students to stay in school until they are 18, and the mandatory ages for leaving school is generally 17 (or less) and a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you want to work in a trade job such as carpentry, plumbing, basically anything construction orientated, but under your law these people who left for perfectly eligible reasons could not vote.

Also, you say it's not racially discriminative, but the statistics state otherwise:

Educationally, fewer Indigenous students attend and finish school than non-Indigenous students. In 2005, the proportion of Indigenous students who completed their secondary education (Year 12 in Australian schools) was 49 per cent, compared with 87 per cent for non-Indigenous students. The academic performance of Australia's Indigenous students is consistently lower than that of non-Indigenous students.
Source: http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/Indigenous_peoples.html

So your proposal will strip 51% of Aboriginal people finishing school in 2005 of their right to vote. Since I do not believe that 51% of what would now be 24/25 year old aboriginals are mouth-breathing imbeciles that cannot comprehend politics, I have to say that it shows that your proposal will discriminate against race.

Surely a better way to combat uninformed voters is to inform them. Maybe have a few mandatory classes when you turn 15 or 16 on politics, so they know the main parties, their main aims and general principles. You said yourself that the Green Party have indoctrinated people through education, so it would be simple to have a few lessons that do the same job, but with politics as a whole.

I begrudgingly agree on your point about the classes that inform students of the major partys policies, the Idea has been put out earlier and I agree that is one option.
As for indigenous Australians, they are sick of being ignored and they also thirst for better education. If the current government actually gave them some funding those figures(which I am sure all Australians are ashamed about) will change. If there right to vote was on the line would that be a disincentive or the opposite?

James Ennever:
True but most are t the later, plus if you're pregnant in high school, you have done something so stupid that I would not want them to be able to choose a government. Unless you live in the third world or Kazakhstan then there really is no excuse to be pregnant before you are fiduciary ready to support a child.
Victims of sexual violence would I hope be excluded from the HSE rule but no others.
Lets not get into the abortion debate either but that is another option.

One, I would like to see your statistics claiming that most people give up high school simply because they don't feel like it anymore. As a person currently undergoing training to be an educator, I doubt this. Yes, their reasons may not all be acceptable to you or anyone else, but that's subjective of course. As for pregnancy, yes, many times it is a stupid mistake. However, everyone makes mistakes, and while there are options, you can't punish someone for keeping their child either. Furthermore, how would you prove a child resulted from sexual assault without previous claims of the crime? Most women don't come forward, let alone teenagers.

Really, the point of my argument is that you can't restrict the right to vote to anyone because you see them as unfit. This argument has been used against women, minorities, the poor and any other group of people previously denied suffrage rights. Besides, merely repealing the law mandating the vote would solve what you see as a a problem. The more uneducated a person is, the less likely they are to vote to begin with, at least in the US.

Loner Jo Jo:

James Ennever:
True but most are t the later, plus if you're pregnant in high school, you have done something so stupid that I would not want them to be able to choose a government. Unless you live in the third world or Kazakhstan then there really is no excuse to be pregnant before you are fiduciary ready to support a child.
Victims of sexual violence would I hope be excluded from the HSE rule but no others.
Lets not get into the abortion debate either but that is another option.

One, I would like to see your statistics claiming that most people give up high school simply because they don't feel like it anymore. As a person currently undergoing training to be an educator, I doubt this. Yes, their reasons may not all be acceptable to you or anyone else, but that's subjective of course. As for pregnancy, yes, many times it is a stupid mistake. However, everyone makes mistakes, and while there are options, you can't punish someone for keeping their child either. Furthermore, how would you prove a child resulted from sexual assault without previous claims of the crime? Most women don't come forward, let alone teenagers.

Really, the point of my argument is that you can't restrict the right to vote to anyone because you see them as unfit. This argument has been used against women, minorities, the poor and any other group of people previously denied suffrage rights. Besides, merely repealing the law mandating the vote would solve what you see as a a problem. The more uneducated a person is, the less likely they are to vote to begin with, at least in the US.

You're the one who said the CNBF attitude is relevent, I did not.
My Idea is for Australia where it is mandotory plus the amount of money you have can not affect your schooling here as it is free.

I wouldn't deny people the right to vote even if it seems that my city keeps electing representatives that only wish to increase benefits for lazy assholes sitting on welfare (Before I get attacked for this, I am aware some people actually do need it, but I wouldn't be wrong in saying that in my city ~50% don't/shouldn't be eligible, and that they're children adapt the same mentality and in most cases just go on welfare too). I would however change the driving license requirement to you need to get a 70% average or so to get a license at 16 years of age, or complete high school (~18 years of age). Might make at least some of the delinquents apply themselves a little.

TheIronRuler:
.
You do realize that it's similar to Voting in 1800 America. Only rich, educated, white, male land owners could cast their vote, since it was democracy!
No women, Blacks, Poor or others. Is that the Democracy you want?
Hail the Republic.

What an absolutely perfect straw man. The OP argued that people should be educated before being allowed to influence government, and you come back with "no women, no blacks, poor or others." I've read your other posts in this thread, and I understand your point about not wanting to create an elite class, but this is clearly going too far. The OP's position is at least plausible and deserving of consideration. Besides, there are perfectly fine ways to argue against it without resorting to such low argumentative tactics.

Out of curiosity, why do you put periods before you start your paragraphs?

OT: It's simply a fact that uneducated people are easily manipulated, and that includes the efforts of political campaigners. It seems counter productive to have a bunch of votes based almost entirely on rhetoric and advertising swaying the election. The strength of democracy is that everyone gets their opinion heard, but the weakness is that, like it or not, some people just don't know how to get what they want, or even what it is they want. And if one talking head is better than the others at convincing the uneducated that they can cure cancer and lower taxes, they get those votes, no matter the actual issues. It seems plausible to think that if everyone who could vote were better acquainted with things like economics and history, and if they were better equipped to follow complex political debates while doing their own research, and if they were more familiar with critical thinking techniques that help reduce bias and prejudice, then the democratic system could elect leaders and enact policy that would be more effective at satisfying everyone's goals.

The problem is that eventually, the goals of the educated are going to be different from the goals of the uneducated, and so those uneducated people are going to get brushed aside. This can be circumvented, I think, if the standard of education required to vote is available to everyone. It would be decidedly low, yes, but it's better than nothing. The public school system seems like just the ticket since it's free. So I think the OP has something here.

Loner Jo Jo:
Really, the point of my argument is that you can't restrict the right to vote to anyone because you see them as unfit. This argument has been used against women, minorities, the poor and any other group of people previously denied suffrage rights. Besides, merely repealing the law mandating the vote would solve what you see as a a problem. The more uneducated a person is, the less likely they are to vote to begin with, at least in the US.

But clearly some people are unfit to vote. Children and the mentally handicapped are unfit to vote. It's wrong to deny people the right to vote for being a woman or for being black because those qualities are irrelevant to a person's ability to make rational choices. Being uneducated, however, is very relevant to a person's ability to make rational choices. It's not so much drawing a line between people fit and not fit to vote as it is re-drawing it.

James Ennever:
Snip

Considering the types of nutters that get through schooling and all the way through college, formal education should have no weight on who gets to vote.

As long as people are of the legal voting age, nothing should bar them from voting.

Heck, I wish the US had mandatory voting, I'm willing to bet that I wouldn't have had to experience Obama's horrible presidency.

Basically what you are trying to say is that people that don't have a formal education shouldn't be able to vote, because they aren't smart enough to vote the right way, or your way, so they should be barred from voting.

That is not democracy. Everybody that is of voting age should have the right to vote, education means nothing.

Edit: Besides, there were plenty of uneducated drop-outs one welfare that voted for Obama, because they thought he would come in on horse save them all by making all their problems go away without them having to do any work.

Yes those people are incredibly dumb, and yes things would probably be better if they hadn't been allowed to vote. But I'm going to defend their right to vote, because everybody of age should be allowed to vote.

Naeras:

Funny, here in Norway a lot of those who didn't get higher education are voting for the right wing xenophobes who promises cheep alcohol and fuel, not the lefties.

Yes, because smart people don't vote right wing -Sarcasm-

I will never vote left wing, and I graduated from college. It made me sick listening to the crazy left wing professors, but I made it out with my logic and sanity intact.

But as I said before, educational background means nothing and should mean nothing when it comes to being able to vote.

I know plenty of crazy leftist students that got to skate right on through class only because they had similar political views of the professors. I would say one of my worst classes was beginner's composition. I know several students that had horrible writing with tons of errors, spelling and grammatical, but since they wrote from a leftist viewpoint, their errors apparently didn't count much against their grades. They still got A's and B's. I write my opinion paper from a right wing viewpoint and I got a C, and I only had two typo spelling errors.

I shouldn't have been surprised, the professor admitted to the class that he was surprised that there wasn't a Michael Moore youth cult on campus, and also how John Kerry would have been a wonderful president.

Considering how much of a leftist brainwashing factory that most colleges, universities, and even high schools are, I would definitely not make formal education a requirement for voting.

Once of voting age, people are considered adults and are allowed to make their own decisions in their lives, and that is enough of a requirement in my book.

Sorry, edit snafu, meant to edit my post and accidentally quoted myself and edited the quote.

Sonic Doctor:

Yes, because smart people don't vote right wing -Sarcasm-

I never said they didn't. I just pointed out that the downright retarded of the right wing parties in Norway has ~20% of the votes in general, but only 3% of the votes from people with college/university education. It served the point that people without educations don't necessarily vote left.

I will never vote left wing, and I graduated from college. It made me sick listening to the crazy left wing professors, but I made it out with my logic and sanity intact.

How heroic of you to make it through hell. The internet is so very proud of you.

Just as a question: how broken is the educational system in the US if the professors are actually visibly "left wing"? You can lose your job as a teacher/professor if you're merely asking what people vote in this country.

summerof2010:

TheIronRuler:
.
You do realize that it's similar to Voting in 1800 America. Only rich, educated, white, male land owners could cast their vote, since it was democracy!
No women, Blacks, Poor or others. Is that the Democracy you want?
Hail the Republic.

What an absolutely perfect straw man. The OP argued that people should be educated before being allowed to influence government, and you come back with "no women, no blacks, poor or others." I've read your other posts in this thread, and I understand your point about not wanting to create an elite class, but this is clearly going too far. The OP's position is at least plausible and deserving of consideration. Besides, there are perfectly fine ways to argue against it without resorting to such low argumentative tactics.

Out of curiosity, why do you put periods before you start your paragraphs?

OT: It's simply a fact that uneducated people are easily manipulated, and that includes the efforts of political campaigners. It seems counter productive to have a bunch of votes based almost entirely on rhetoric and advertising swaying the election. The strength of democracy is that everyone gets their opinion heard, but the weakness is that, like it or not, some people just don't know how to get what they want, or even what it is they want. And if one talking head is better than the others at convincing the uneducated that they can cure cancer and lower taxes, they get those votes, no matter the actual issues. It seems plausible to think that if everyone who could vote were better acquainted with things like economics and history, and if they were better equipped to follow complex political debates while doing their own research, and if they were more familiar with critical thinking techniques that help reduce bias and prejudice, then the democratic system could elect leaders and enact policy that would be more effective at satisfying everyone's goals.

The problem is that eventually, the goals of the educated are going to be different from the goals of the uneducated, and so those uneducated people are going to get brushed aside. This can be circumvented, I think, if the standard of education required to vote is available to everyone. It would be decidedly low, yes, but it's better than nothing. The public school system seems like just the ticket since it's free. So I think the OP has something here.

Thanks, it seems that people in genral are racist, I just want the derps to not be able to vote and people automatically think I mean black people...... I am just saying the conclusions people jumpto are weird.

summerof2010:
[quote="TheIronRuler" post="18.337244.13623684"].
You do realize that it's similar to Voting in 1800 America. Only rich, educated, white, male land owners could cast their vote, since it was democracy!
No women, Blacks, Poor or others. Is that the Democracy you want?
Hail the Republic.

What an absolutely perfect straw man. The OP argued that people should be educated before being allowed to influence government, and you come back with "no women, no blacks, poor or others." I've read your other posts in this thread, and I understand your point about not wanting to create an elite class, but this is clearly going too far. The OP's position is at least plausible and deserving of consideration. Besides, there are perfectly fine ways to argue against it without resorting to such low argumentative tactics.
Out of curiosity, why do you put periods before you start your paragraphs?
-snip-
[quote]
.
I should have probably changed my previous post, but as I read on I realized my mistake as I assumed something James never suggested.
When you look at it from a different perspective, i.e. the one James offered, then yes, it has merit. The question here is how educated would a man need to be in order to fully realize the situation around him both politically, socially and historically since some campaign with half truths that can only be exposed as such if the voter bothers to research the topic.
How deep does the rabbit hole go? Where do we stop and say - "Here, more than this is unnecessary to make an informed decision in an election".

I don't think anyone should be denied the right to vote. Even if you're serving time in prison, I still think you should be reading up on the political parties and voting in the election when it rolls around.

Just one thing to add, voting is NOT mandatory in Australia. There is no law that requires you to vote, you cannot be punished for not voting. You are only required to have your name marked at a polling booth to indicate you are aware there is an election and you can vote. You are not required to vote. I don't know how many times I can reiterate that because several people in this thread seem to be unaware of this.

summerof2010:

Loner Jo Jo:
Really, the point of my argument is that you can't restrict the right to vote to anyone because you see them as unfit. This argument has been used against women, minorities, the poor and any other group of people previously denied suffrage rights. Besides, merely repealing the law mandating the vote would solve what you see as a a problem. The more uneducated a person is, the less likely they are to vote to begin with, at least in the US.

But clearly some people are unfit to vote. Children and the mentally handicapped are unfit to vote. It's wrong to deny people the right to vote for being a woman or for being black because those qualities are irrelevant to a person's ability to make rational choices. Being uneducated, however, is very relevant to a person's ability to make rational choices. It's not so much drawing a line between people fit and not fit to vote as it is re-drawing it.

You do make a point. However, I would argue that's different as the ability to think critically or think abstractly is not developed until puberty. Politics involve some very abstract ideas and opinions, and one does need some experience in order to formulate their own opinions. Going on the US system again, while 18 is a very arbitrary age, it is the commonly used age to demarcate minors from adults. As voting is a very adult decision, it should be reserved for adults. (Of course, maybe future generations will change the meaning of adult and consider society's current definition backwards.)

Furthermore, intellectual disability does not necessarily bar a person from voting. Only if a person has been deemed incompetent, or to relate to my previous point, having the mental capacity of a child, by the courts are they denied their right to vote. There are plenty of people who have a mild(er) intellectual disability who exercise their right to vote, or at least, can.

Education does not mean that a person cannot think rationally. People without a high school degree make rational choices all the time. Furthermore, education, in terms of degrees acquired, do not point to understanding of politics or related topics. Will a person who has a doctorate in Bio-Chemical Engineering understand politics perfectly? They certainly could if they desired, but it does not mean they do. Should we deny the vote to anyone who doesn't watch all the debates? Should we deny the vote to anyone who doesn't thoroughly research their choice? It would certainly lead to educated decisions, but it would cut out the majority of the populous. In short, education does not necessarily denote an ability to think critically about politics.

Naeras:

Just as a question: how broken is the educational system in the US if the professors are actually visibly "left wing"? You can lose your job as a teacher/professor if you're merely asking what people vote in this country.

Professors in the US can pretty much do and say whatever the hell they want in their classes. The say part of course is free speech, but there other things that the universities let slide that they shouldn't.

Somebody I knew back at my old university had a professor during the Obama/McCain presidential election that during valuable class time, gave a bonus quiz that was pretty much a quiz about Obama's life had what a great guy he must be. It asked how many children he has, where he went to school, and a little written question at the end that ask people to explain why they thought Obama was such a great presidential candidate. Points off of course if the quiz taker said they didn't like Obama.

Hell, that class wasn't even a class about politics, it was just a literature class. I believe what that person told me, because I had that same professor the next semester and he was just as bad as he was when the other person had him.

As you say, if that professor did something like that in Norway, he would be fired. Here in the US in colleges and universities, there is a little thing called tenure, and that professor has it. Tenure is basically like having a card that says that a professor can do whatever the hell he/she wants without fear of getting fired. A professor can just take a semester off and travel abroad and come back knowing that the his/her position is still there.

A tenured professor would pretty much have to assault and physically wound or kill a student before his/her job would be threatened. To make matters worse such tenured professors like the one I mentioned, are on a thing called a tenured board that determines if other professors get tenure. Good luck if your political views don't match that of the board.

There was another tenured professor that I had, nearly half the class including me, failed or almost failed her class, because she lost our final projects after we turned them into her. She claimed she didn't know where they were, and since she didn't have them, obviously half the class hadn't turned them in. She wouldn't even let us re-print our projects and bring them to her in the same day, because she waited until the day that grades were due to be turned into the school to tell us this, so she didn't have time to grade a half class worth of projects.

I had the same professor for another class, and one of the students got her on the subject of tenure, and several of us mention how we thought that the students should have some say on whether or not a professor gets tenure. She then exclaimed, "Ha ha ha, are you crazy, what do a bunch of students know about what makes a good professor."

So yeah, the US educational system is incredibly messed up. On top of that, don't get me started on the hiring system for getting a job anywhere. These days, education means nothing anyway, it is all about experience, and being taught on how to do something doesn't count as experience. It is crazy, even starting level positions 9 times out of 10 require at least 2 years of experience in the field you are going into, and as I said, schooling in the field doesn't count. Really, the only way to get a job these days is if you know somebody on the inside that can vouch for you. Even though I was never a part of them, I miss the good old days when people would get hired just because they were there looking for a job.

TheIronRuler:
How deep does the rabbit hole go? Where do we stop and say - "Here, more than this is unnecessary to make an informed decision in an election".

It's a good question. And it's clearly a normative kind of question - one that will never have a definite answer, but one that has answers which are nonetheless clearly better and worse. We may not be able to tell exactly where the dividing line is, but we have some ideas about the kinds of things people should know before trying to decide who to vote for. We know we can't make all of that knowledge available to everyone easily, but we can make some of it available. I say we should make the line where everyone has that level of education available to them - this will certainly be less than what one should reasonably know when making important political decisions, but it's better than nothing.

A high school education seems like a good approximation for that level of knowledge I'm talking about, or it's at least the closest we've got. I think it could (in fact, direly needs to) be improved, but it seems fair to say "ok, you need to know at least this much before we let you make decisions as important as this."

Loner Jo Jo:
I would argue that's different as the ability to think critically or think abstractly is not developed until puberty. Politics involve some very abstract ideas and opinions, and one does need some experience in order to formulate their own opinions.

... Only if a person has been deemed incompetent, or to relate to my previous point, having the mental capacity of a child, by the courts are they denied their right to vote. ...

Education does not mean that a person cannot think rationally. People without a high school degree make rational choices all the time. Furthermore, education, in terms of degrees acquired, do not point to understanding of politics or related topics. Will a person who has a doctorate in Bio-Chemical Engineering understand politics perfectly? They certainly could if they desired, but it does not mean they do. Should we deny the vote to anyone who doesn't watch all the debates? Should we deny the vote to anyone who doesn't thoroughly research their choice? It would certainly lead to educated decisions, but it would cut out the majority of the populous. In short, education does not necessarily denote an ability to think critically about politics.

You seem to be making my point for me in the first two paragraphs. I'm trying to say that capacity is an important factor when deciding who we allow to vote. What I'm suggesting is that many people who can vote in fact lack capacity, since they are not aware of the even the basic background of contemporary issues, nor are they familiar with fundamental critical thinking skills. I think that these things are critical to a person's ability to make legitimate decisions about politics, rather than flights of fancy based on advertising and social pressure.

I agree that having an education does not necessarily show that a person can think rationally (though that's not the only thing I would want an education to give - actual information about economics, history, and politics itself are important). This is a sad fact about the educational system, at least here in America. Still, I think it's a good indicator. Even the person with a degree in bio-chemical engineering had to take civics in high school and econ in college. It's that baseline level of understanding that I want all voters to have. Think of the education I'm talking about like a driver's license - not everyone with a driver's license can drive well, but you'd still expect them to have one before you let them behind the wheel.

You make the point that expecting a certain level of competence and familiarity with the subject matter would exclude a lot of people from the vote. But I ask you, why would we want people who are incompetent and don't even know what they're talking about to vote? The consent of the governed is important and all, but if you let the children run the class, they'll never learn anything.

summerof2010:

You make the point that expecting a certain level of competence and familiarity with the subject matter would exclude a lot of people from the vote. But I ask you, why would we want people who are incompetent and don't even know what they're talking about to vote? The consent of the governed is important and all, but if you let the children run the class, they'll never learn anything.

Because all social groups need to be represented, simple as. So that the people who are unemployed can vote for whoever promises more jobs. So that people without a high school degree can vote for whoever promises a better/more affordable education plan for adults should they decide to continue.

If we have a democracy, we have a democracy. Restricting the right to vote is a slippery slope to jump from and a dangerous precedent to set. We may not like the election results, but that's just the way it is. Besides, in order to make in informed decision you really don't need to do in-depth research.

I'll even claim that most of the people who go vote in countries where voting is not compulsory, care and know enough to be making an informed decision in the first place. I mean sure there's some diehard fans of this or that politician who don't care what he says, as long as his name is on the ballot, that's where the vote will be. But my opinion is, if you're picking your butt off your seat to actually go vote, you likely know a bit about what's going on.

However, what I do want to happen is less (a lot less) campaigning and more factual debates.

In the end I often find myself going "Okay who gave THAT guy the right to vote", but I can't think of a better system that would not break down on the grounds of being made by humans.

Firstly, in regards to mandatory voting...(most) people work for their income, the government takes X percent of their money in taxes, so in effect X percent of the time is owned by the government. But to spend half an hour getting a say in who spends that money is a terrible burden?

Secondly, you don't have to vote, you have to get your name ticked off. You can leave the ballot blank, but by far the majority of people don't, they go to the effort of filling the forms in.

Thirdly...limiting the right to vote is dangerous. In Australia, 3 types of people can't vote:

1) People convicted of treason
2) People mentally incapable
3) People currently serving a 5+ year term in prison (and there was a shitstorm over taking their vote away)

Everyone is is obliged to vote. Taking votes away from anyone is dangerous. Suppose someone didn't finish high school for whatever reason, they are still part of society, they have the right to be represented.

Go to the War Memomiral in Canberra, or look at the monuments you'll find in more or less every town. You'll see the names of far too numerous Australians, many of them who didn't finish high school, who died in the mud far from home to preserve that right.

...

Also..."X shouldn't be allowed to vote because they vote for Y who I don't like?". Yeah, that sounds tempting, but that's about as contrary to the ideas Australia was built on as you can get.

Hypothetical: let's divide the population into two halves, those who have a high school diploma and those who don't, and those who don't have a high school diploma are barred from voting. What's then stopping the half who do have a high school diploma who now make up 100% of the voting pool voting for higher taxes on non-graduates? Or to conscript non-graduates into fighting a war? Or to de-fund public schools to make it harder for people to graduate from high school in the first place so that their voting powers don't become diluted? The uneducated already lack many of the opportunities that those with more education take for granted and the only result I can see from ripping their voting powers away is permanently entrenching a section of the community into a sub-second class citizen status. In the past it's only after groups like women and racial minorities were allowed to vote that their civil rights and standards of living approached that of what you would expect for yourself.

Also, as has been pointed out, there are a lot of idiots out there who are university graduates and a lot of bright people who never graduated high school. Not to mention that drop-outs, idiots, and yes, even Greens voters, deserve representation in parliament just like anyone else, as long as they follow the principles of democracy and the constitution.

I'll give you a little bit of my own personal story here. I'm a high school drop out, I only have a grade 10 education because of a chronic illness that was undiagnosed at the time, and I've yet been well enough to make it through a year of high school equivalency because of that illness. I also plan to vote Greens at the next federal election, mainly, but not only because, my local Labor MP has already announced that he will vote against marriage equality in parliament and Tony Abbott has already ruled out a conscience vote for the Liberals. Lack of marriage equality continues to cost me and my family thousands of dollars and a lot of heartache that we would not have to go through if I was straight. Tell me why I don't deserve to vote?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked