Should the Right to vote be limited?

JCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
6,604
I said at the time of eVoting that a quick 10 random question multiple choice quiz at ballot time - covering history and economics, civics, etc. would be a great way to weight votes. Score 10 out of 10 and get a full vote, score 5 out of 10 and effectively half your vote gets eliminated. 0 out of 10 and you still get to vote, it just doesn't get counted.
Another alternative might be to do this random test online or at designated centres before each election. A lot of people I am sure would fail it first time, then have to actually look into the issues before casting their vote.
 


Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,364
The best way to solve the problem is to abolish voting and just pick 600 people at random to lead the country.
Obviously we could get a bunch of crooks, pedos, thieves liars and even murderers, BUT it would save all the money wasted on elections and we wouldn't be any worse off.

The Greeks used a similar method to select leaders. It is true democracy as absolutely anyone can be selected.
 

Henry94.

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
1,925
Last edited:
Last edited:
We already eliminate a lot of stupid people by not having compulsory voting. That's as far as it should go.
 

Politics matters

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
7,707
I said at the time of eVoting that a quick 10 random question multiple choice quiz at ballot time - covering history and economics, civics, etc. would be a great way to weight votes. Score 10 out of 10 and get a full vote, score 5 out of 10 and effectively half your vote gets eliminated. 0 out of 10 and you still get to vote, it just doesn't get counted.
Good idea, my concern is that such a system would tend to benefit the more educated/higher income groups of our society.

The voter turnouts in deprived areas would be very low, relative to other constituencies, your idea might not help the situation.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
16,606
Good idea, my concern is that such a system would tend to benefit the more educated/higher income groups of our society.

The voter turnouts in deprived areas would be very low, relative to other constituencies, your idea might not help the situation.
I'm not talking about Astrophysics and the Classics - I was talking about more everyday questions like who was the first Taoiseach, what's the standard rate of tax, what age do you get a state pension, etc.

Simple enough ones like that. Actually even as I was writing this is dawned on me that there's a theory exam for a learner driving license now - so maybe there should be a similar license to vote, one that everyone can pass (eventually) but that actually gets across the basic fundamentals of the states revenues (does the government's money (a) grow on the magic money tree or (b) get taken as tax from someone who had to earn twice that first).
 

Franzoni

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
16,327
Last edited:
Last edited:
Well most people are convinced of that alright. If they are voting for parish pump reasons alone then no, they don't really fully comprehend what is going on.

For instance in referendums people will constantly talk about the lack of information being given to them as opposed to bothering to do a very simple search online. If having seen the information they still don't understand what is happening why on earth should they have a say?

t might be an idea whereby people can honestly state on a ballot paper that they don't understand the issues for reasons such as the above and such votes should be counted toward the validity of the election or otherwise.
Of course they do don't be absurd ....they wish to influence the debate on issues that concern them so vote accordingly....

This voting for a 'national agenda' that many keep harping on about would be all dandy and fine if we had functioning public services and local government to take care of local issues along with a educational system not indebted and influenced still by one of the most conservative and repressive organizations this planet has ever seen...

Anyways even if we went with some of these undemocratic propositions it would still go no way to stopping people voting in referendums as a protest vote against a government as no doubt the questions to inquire on their knowledge of the issue would be well flagged in advance...

The people who don't bother voting won't vote anyway so the whole premise that somehow people just go down and vote for the sake of it like sticking a pin in the runners for the Grand National as insinuated in the OP comes across as a bit ridiculous to be honest...
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185
I believe that ideally only those who are of good will which in this case means that they put the interests of the common good before their own narrow personal ones when making political decisions and those of at least a basic degree of rationality (Im not talking about IQ- there are very many people with high IQs who are deeply irrational) should have any Politcial Rights. Do people here think it would be possible to create tests that could show whether people or not possessed these virtues even if they choose to lie on them? Scientology is evil but they are all sorts of ingenius tests that show up people's psychological and emotional weakenesses even if they are trying to hide them.

I think if such tests could be created and passing them made a necesscity if you were to get the right to vote even under current circumstances it would greatly improve the quality of our politics given how so much of it has now been reduced to people seeking to serve their pretty greeds and allowing the puppet masters of the media and capitalist entertainment industry to play their emotions like a violin (and what a hordid sound they produce off them most of the time).
Never heard so much backward thinking claptrap in all my life. Why do you think the common man and woman has fought so hard for the vote over centuries? You also fail to appreciate the difference between domcracy and politics.

Up the yard you go with your vile nonsense!
 

Irish-Rationalist

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
3,205
I believe that ideally only those who are of good will which in this case means that they put the interests of the common good before their own narrow personal ones when making political decisions and those of at least a basic degree of rationality (Im not talking about IQ- there are very many people with high IQs who are deeply irrational) should have any Politcial Rights. Do people here think it would be possible to create tests that could show whether people or not possessed these virtues even if they choose to lie on them? Scientology is evil but they are all sorts of ingenius tests that show up people's psychological and emotional weakenesses even if they are trying to hide them.

I think if such tests could be created and passing them made a necesscity if you were to get the right to vote even under current circumstances it would greatly improve the quality of our politics given how so much of it has now been reduced to people seeking to serve their pretty greeds and allowing the puppet masters of the media and capitalist entertainment industry to play their emotions like a violin (and what a hordid sound they produce off them most of the time).
People should be encouraged not to vote. It only encourages the political elites to continue to monopolise the reigns of power in the interests of the ruling class. All governance is oppression and tyranny, capitalism is cannibalism, and I'm talking like my old former 17 year old Anarchist self ...

Anarchy, peace and freedom. There is no authority but yourself.

~ CRASS.
 

Rightist

Active member
Joined
Sep 9, 2015
Messages
142
It is limited. People under 18 cant vote.

Ireland isnt a full democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demeny_voting

[Demeny voting is the provision of a political voice for children by allowing parents or guardians to vote on their behalf. The term was coined by Warren C. Sanderson in 2007.[1] Under a Demeny voting system, each parent would cast a proxy vote, worth half a vote, for each of their dependent children, thus allowing for a split vote if the parents' political views differ. Once children reach the minimum voting age, their parents would no longer vote on their behalf./QUOTE]
What's about voting right for animals and vegetables and trees?
They deserve it.
This will be limitless democracy.
 

Lúidín

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
7,253
Votes for vegetables? I wouldn't trust those Brussels sprouts.

Have to run. Here comes the nurse with the meds.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
People should be encouraged not to vote. It only encourages the political elites to continue to monopolise the reigns of power in the interests of the ruling class. All governance is oppression and tyranny, capitalism is cannibalism, and I'm talking like my old former 17 year old Anarchist self ...

Anarchy, peace and freedom. There is no authority but yourself.

~ CRASS.
I loved Conflict but even though I could sort of see what others saw in them I could never get into CRASS because I found their pacifism and blasemphy both to disgusting for words.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,696
I loved Conflict but even though I could sort of see what others saw in them I could never get into CRASS because I found their pacifism and blasemphy both to disgusting for words.
Perhaps you ought to properly explore pacifism before handing down such a judgement as "disgusting".

To understand it in its real, pure form, read Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You". And from that, appreciate what Gandhi actually did with his "satyagraha". It was quite phenomenal, and utterly unlike what any of today's "peace movements" actually do, or purport to do, or believe.

(The appreciation I mean is over and above say appreciating the pervasive malice and malevolence towards certain parties that unmistakably exists in these "peace" gatherings, or appreciating say the Soviet orchestration of Western "peace" movements towards their own ends etc.)

To go beyond that, and really get to grip with the issues that the real world throws up wrt intentions towards pacifism, and what might be really actually done, and start thinking about decision points etc, read Bertrand Russell. He wrote many many papers about it. He thought very very deeply about it.

Finally, Penny Rimbaud was a poet-philosopher. What he did was take a hold of concepts and things in our world and put them out there - he was more concerned with their feeling and essence than any real "analysis" of them. He made youth "feel". He planted seeds. It was up to the young punk then to tend to that seed in his own way.

As for blasphemy, it was no doubt the best device to neuter that particular form of oppression. Indeed perhaps there were many souls who did not suffer oppression under the dogma of Church. But many many other souls were oppressed by it. Particularly the young. So there was nothing "disgusting" either about their use of that device to render that particular oppression powerless.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom