It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Mmm. Who gets to choose who has the license to vote?
Certain countries have a test which must be passed for permanent residents to obtain citizenship. It's reasonably basic, but addresses some of the items you've noted. Will that make the person more informed? Yes, for a few weeks, until they forget what they have learned (if they aren't interested in retaining it).
Ultimately those who are interested will vote. Those who aren't won't. Knowledge & education isn't going to change that.
Moreover, just because someone has knowledge of the process and who their local MPs are doesn't mean they are necessarily going to exercise any better judgement at the voting box. Delusion isn't a function of education. At the end of the day this is as much an emotional process as it is a logical one. People vote for those who inspire them, or vote against those who they dislike. Usually their decision is made based on pocket book issues closest to them or on the basis of perceived values, even if they may choose to rationalize their decision.
So again, there is some merit to what you propose, but it's a slippery slope when one tries to create credentials for voting rights. Are the voters to blame when false and unsubstantiated advertising (on both sides) is allowed in campaigns? When leaders can avoid debates if they choose? When third parties are excluded for all intents and purposes from the discussion? When everything is run on tv advertising driven schedules and via soundbites? When vitriol and personal attacks without merit are allowed during campaigning? I humbly suggest that this is where efforts should be focused first.
Why bother having a driving test then or medical school?
Wouldn't it be a fairer society to do away with all education and let any Tom, Dick or Harry get behind the wheel of a car or do open heart surgery?
Call me facist if you like but shouldn't the process to see who ends up with their finger on the button not be in the hands of people who are influenced by X-Factor, Ant & Dec and Taylor Swift's latest spweings on Twitter?
I agree with what @bondjames has written. From my own point of view, such actions would eventually lead to totalitarianism.
Who sets the questions? Who decides the threshold for passing the test? Who decides who should be invited to take the test in the first place?
I put it to everyone that the people they think are behind electoral verdicts are not the lowest common denominator, simply because in the vast majority of cases these people don't bother to exercise their right to vote anyway. They have no interest in politics, but usually confine themselves to voting for whichever reality TV show is currently being shown.
Much of the arguments here presume that everyone who can vote, does vote. Off the top of my head, I believe that only about a third of those eligible actually take part in local and national elections, so the 'weeding out' takes place naturally.
We're not leaving after all. So that should
Keep all the remoaners happy.
However, I can't see how it could be done properly. As @stag noted, how does one administer a test? When does one apply the test? It would have to be just before one votes imho. How many questions? What does one ask? Where does one draw the line? Should the questions be strictly procedural based, rather than in any way, shape or form designed to solicit political ideology? Or should they be general knowledge based about platform/manifesto (and if so, how relevant is that, given most politicians don't keep their promises anyway)? What about privacy? Voting is a private affair currently as you know.
Some who've proposed this sort of thing are terribly anti-religious and have gone so far as to say that religious people must be stupid. Do we then not allow religious people to vote? It's a slippery slope,
Perhaps a way to address this is to have a mandatory 5 to 10 question test prior to taking the vote, but make it confidential. Voters can decide, based on the accuracy of their responses to the question, whether they personally think they should vote or go back and learn a bit more about the issues first. Sure that won't stop extremists or ideologues, but it could perhaps cause a few to reconsider and get more knowledgeable about the issues.
As I said, better to focus first on all the other things (media concentration, lack of transparency in process, lack of meaningful debate outside of soundbites, entrenched Ivy League/Oxbridge power, MIC influence on policy etc. etc.). I'd rather not see a president's wife or son running for the most powerful position in the world again either. Given the choice, I'd much rather have a grocer's daughter.
With rights come responsibilities and many citizen ignore their responsibity to make any effort to educate themselves on the most basic ellements of politics. I dont like the idea of a test with a pass or fail for the reasons stated by others but turning up at the town hall or community centre to watch a 2 hour video (no test) would be a very minor price to pay in order to take part in the democratic process but, for some, this would be too much of an effort as they have no/little interest in politics. So they would be filtered out. If 2 hours of your time every 5 years is too much of a price to pay, then you don't deserve a vote. I think thats a fair principle and it would remind every citizen that they should never take their right to vote for granted.
I still don't see what the link between watching the video or having knowledge and making the 'right' (or is that left?) decision at the ballot box is though. Ultimately many vote for purely personal and emotional reasons.
Of course the bigger issue is why any gov would bring in such a system. A more engaged/educated electorate is the last thing they want.
content not really the issue, its just testing how much commitment the voters have.
Anything that is given for free is inevitavbly under valued.
Are you standing for election? Because you've certainly got my vote.
Inspired idea and one that could well bring about peace in our time.
Surely there is already a barrier in voting, which is called voting? Quickly googled estimates show 58 percent eligible voter turnout in the 2016 US election and 72 percent in the Brexit referendum. Before we assume the 'will of the people' is wrong, we should note that, in such close elections as these two were, there's no way to say satisfactorily the outcome is the will of all the people (only the will of the people who did vote).
Low turnout sounds like a matter-of-fact problem (oh they just didn't vote) with no obvious solutions (how are we supposed to make them want to?) but it's really just the culmination of many other problems in need of fixing, some of which @bondjames noted above. Some blame falls to the people (low to no motivation -- the lazy as called above) and some comes from the government (voter suppression).
Both are in the interest of those in power. Fewer people voting, it seems to me, is always in their interest.
And I don't even feel sorry for him.
Or rather Austria.
@patb, so you weren’t aware of all those Remainers saying that leaving would be one colossal clusterf***? That the time and energy required from government and business for years to come from dealing with this pointless act of national self harm would distract the country from the real challenges at hand and drive the country into an economic and diplomatic dead end?
Funny that, since you clearly voted leave.
Hmm. Your post kind of encapsulates why we have a representative parliamentary democracy and not government by referendum.
“Everyone told me that if I did “A” then it would be a total mess. I did “A” and now it is total mess. Must be some else’s fault”.
Out of interest does it bother Leavers in the slightest that you guys voted for and created this disastrous situation for your country? Any desire to take ownership for your decision or are you going to blame everything that goes wrong from now on (and a lot is going wrong for the UK) on those who voted to remain in the world’s largest free trade block along with our closest political allies?
The depths of denial and extent Leavers will go to attribute all blame to anyone other than themselves is brilliant and awe inspiring to behold. Trump couldn’t do better.
I suppose he might be described as an ‘expert’ though, so not someone who’s views any Leaver need pay any attention to. Total nonsense infact. The man is clearly clueless.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/19/brexit-loss-influence-1970s-ex-mi6-chief-sir-john-sawers
With hindsight Skyfall feels increasingly like the “Brexit Bond” to me.
Really? Most Remainers seem pretty quiet and resigned about the disastrous course the country is now on. It seems to be the Leavers who are doing most of the moaning these days. Turns out paradise ain’t all they were expecting.
You guys voted for this BS. Suck it up and deal with it rather than whingeing about how long it’s taking and how complicated it now all seems.
Welcome to reality.
Turns out that you were sold a crock by the Leave campaign. Nothing - literally nothing- they promised is achievable. Those are the facts you have to face. Deal with that rather than blaming Remainers for the mess you’ve placed everyone in.