The debate "Voters should pass a general knowledge test of politics before they are allowed to vote" was started by
February 11, 2017, 1:29 am.
41 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 20 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Jona posted 22 arguments, Liberator posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
neveralone posted 16 arguments, Liberator posted 1 argument, Blue_ray posted 6 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument, LSpalding posted 2 arguments, jazzyjay posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
dalton7532, Liberator, Sherrie, Jona, shehab, CoreyO, thereal, human, Jericho and 32 visitors agree.
jazzyjay, MrShine, Blue_ray, neveralone, historybuff, smv2005, LSpalding, spuddi43, jgwin10, navi_0000 and 10 visitors disagree.
Sex is not something which humans memorise. Its common sense.
I was talking about literal sex, not sex ed.
government schools are strict. Private schools arent much. In some schools, Children were detained for not speaking in english( southern india)
we do have sex education. A specialist comes to our school every week to present us a power point presentation about safe sex and AIDS and STDS whatsoever.
aah, actually its practised mainly in southern India and the nothern indians lay more emphasis on teaching concepts. I live in North East ( 400km from China) We have teachers from both the parts.
not that America was any different until very recently.
I heard Indian schools primarily teach through strict memorization and repetition. that type of style will make even sex boring.
These are one of the most boring subjects that go past my head. However those days are just over. and i feel pretty good about it. Now i'm 16. i'm in 11, so i dont have to study these.........
In India, a student has to study civics, history, economics till they're 16 or till class 10 if they study in central board of secondary education affiliated school which is the most prominent board. Now studying it till extreme level won't be required but still to increase awareness a particular no. of free seminars and workshops can be organised . Other than that particular awareness campaigns can also be carried. And well not so related to this discussion but an opinion from my side is that in general right to education should be present till certain level. That could really be useful if properly implemented.
Now why I an not proposing a particular kind of education system in my mind, well the simple reason for that is that it will deprive many presently uneducated people, and the ones who right now are not have access to education. So until everyone has basic access I even if purpose any system it would not be very relevant. Do the first need is this test and proper implementation of right to education.
Let's define first of all basic questions like eligibility of contesting elections, things like the alliance or coalition of major party in their state, major policies for alleviation of poor, name of the major candidate running for the party that lastly formed government.
Secondly the questions based on general issues that are needed to be addressed like corruption, female feticide, etc which would not include any party name or mentions.
Thirdly the basic nature of the last ruling party.
Mentioning of any two major policies by any two parties.
And similar pattern questions.
you obviously will try to hide it in this test as well. this is like with contracts. u can't just trust they are not against u.
test of politics?
what would that include?
shouldn't an informed voter understand some economics? history? geography and foreign affairs? etc? what good would understanding the government do if you don't understand reality?
so it looks like some college education is key... and I'll be OK with that... if that ed is available for all at no charge. otherwise your just banning poor people from voting.
and if it's not college but some half assed "political education" it better still be free, but it will likely be ineffective.
again, this depends on exactly what kind of education you are proposing and how detailed and broad it will be.
can you elaborate?
As earlier wrote that the test would aim to have absolute answers so your next argument holds no relevance.
Apart from that don't just conclude that I want to destroy the constitution see change is a constant and we want a change for better future.
See, when you stole anyone's car you don't go around and say hey I stole the car you don't do a crime in front of people you hide it from public to not to be punished.
Similar would be this case.
Ya the political general knowledge test is a pop quiz. Right?
Wow how did you even filled it in context that's not even near to what we are talking.
Yeah, screw the constitution! Let's throw out voter's rights and deny voters because they failed a pop quiz. Why not?
First thing crimes are not done publicly and this is something that would be released soon in public because it's for the public.
Second thing if you think that biasness would be a problem than would people sit around and support it?
Or are all the people making the test would support that?
Or people giving the test would support it?
Or public would not know about what happened?
Preassuming that even after the public release of test people would not realise anything is an illogical approach or a missed approach.
See any independent institution/commission can be assigned the task and this problem which is being constantly raised is not really a problem which can not be solved.
And arguments raised by opposition so far are sufficiently not enough to either oppose the motion nor form a strong opinion about the problems that they want to address.
when a criminal does a crime they don't expect to be caught. same here. such bias will still get through. and then who watches out for the bias? how do we know they won't abuse such a power?
Do you know what this problem can easily be countered.
Like for my country an institute like election commission or retired judges can be given the responsibility. And what they do would be public soon so if they are biased it would be a problem for them, because people are just not going to see people doing anything.
now u see ur assuming no one is going to try and bias the test. sure maybe a couple won't but others will.
If the test would be biased the public can revolt and that would only increase the problems of people who have made the test and also the government and hence the experts would design the paper without the influence of anyone from any party.
Question would be general, it won't be about what they think or not rather it would be about knowledge that they have.
The test won't filter people on the basis of whom they are voting and whom not. The questions in test would aim to have absolute answers. And one person just have to score sufficiently enough marks that won't be very high.
The test would be based on general knowledge about the government, to check whether the person voting is concerned or not. Yes the test won't be very easy because then the point of test would become useless but it won't be hard either nor it would be biased.
So, you mean that anyone should be made to vote regardless of whether he has any idea of what he is voting for?
How is that any better than randomly appointing leaders?
Yes, that's the reason for the debate.
Though he would be informed enough, else he wouldn't have been chosen to lead.
I don't care about the political affiliations in your country.
I am a selectionist -make sense of of how it fits your political differences.
The flaw here is that the president of the United States might very well have said no. Does that mean he shouldn't have been allowed to vote? If he isn't informed enough to vote, how could he possibly be informed enough to lead?
your name is "Liberator" but you don't seem to be very Liberal, you seem to be one of those "Progressives"
people will make their choices depending on their world views and life experiences, any policy one person may find good could be terrible for the next person. Running a test on voters to see if they know things about politics is a step towards facism, because the tests are always going to have a biased against one side and they usually lean to the left of politics, the people marking the test and making the decisions could say no to that person voting soley because they have the wrong opinions therefore making the voting process completely useless. Citizens should be allowed to vote regardless of their "Knowledge" on politics because they could see policies that are helpful for everyone as a whole that are overlooked by these standardized tests.
The answer is simple and obvious, yes, so that means that it will be all the better to filter those people out from voting.
That's what the debate is.
this is one that should be.
Liberator, first thing all rights are not absolute. And maybe we can define better forms of government.
as much as I want to agree with jona, I can't. the idea that in a democracy getting everyone to vote is critically important is naive. pulling someone off the street who knows nothing about politics and getting him to vote, is worse than him not voting. if someone doesn't know what they are voting for, they shouldn't be voting.
unfortunately a test would never work. it would be abused. example, Democrats might try to slip in a question like is global warming real. I mean the answer is obvious and very easy, but the question would intentionally try to eliminate people who would vote for their opponents.
Both sides? How can lead anywhere with that?
I said all, 'unambiguously all'.
exactly. experts on both sides can become bias. therefore if somone doesn't like how a state voted all they have to do is say they tampered with the test and then u have to check each test.
What type of interests? Political opinions?
That would be preassuming that the educated experts will be ambiguously favouring one political side and will definitely thus make the test biased.Do you see the problem with that.
or the corruption accusations that will ensue.
that's not even including the bickering in-between them.
so educated and experts. both who have their interests at heart. do u see the problem with this?
The people who have general knowledge and are up to date. Probably educators and experts.
Read my second argument.
who gets to dictate how challenging it is?
what about illiterate people? What about those who havent read a book since their birth? How would they pass it? They know about the government as equally as the literate ones.
No, that's undemocratic.
You should be knowing already, it is not only the people who can pass some test who are to be governed.
Denying others even the right to vote is unacceptable. What do you think democracy is based on?
It would not be rocket science my friend, it would be GENERAL knowledge test which any concerned citizen would be able to pass with little or no hard work.
not nesasarly. ur idea forces one of two sides. it could get more. or it could get people to stop voting entirely. other thing u can do is encourage grass root involment.
Well being a part of youth I can tell you that investing in future is great but I don't find it a better option as, as my option is implemented the other ideas would accompany it.
Plus I would find it better if votes of people make more sense.
well one thing u could do is instill the idea of politics being important while their young. have gov. class talk about it.
Read my previous to previous argument- first paragraph I have already addressed that thing.
Plus if you have or know better ideas please share.
there are other ways though. ones that may prove more successful.
What I say means that this could be a way of engaging majority of people who want to vote for a better future of their country(and even the world).
by that i mean if u get everyone or the majority involved in politics then such a test would not be needed.
What I said was that this model can increase participation of public. Apart from that I am not saying this is the only option of increasing public participation but it has many other benefits that I have mentioned.
You are mentioning that after public participation and their interest in politics, this system would no longer be needed but this is not an argument against whether this system should exist or not as what we are addressing is the current scenario not what we would be needing afterwards.
i seemed to have came off wrong. what I was saying was encouraged involvement in all politics like u said. after that I don't think ur requirement would be needed.
So, what do you want that we can organise it and later realise that we have many voters who vote but don't know why they are voting, or just go around to experience voting without any purpose?
See if we organise it we must have it as a requirement. It's not a very big requirement instead its a small one, and can improve the quality of votes and can encourage the quality of government that would come into power play.
Plus, do you admit once its possible you have no problem with this motion?Once almost all people start voting this motion can be implemented?
Its high time right now, now we want better quality and that won't be at the rate of few sections infact all the people would be included.
We can get more people into voting when we can convince them that it would make sense.
And encouraging knowledge about system can increase participation of public in government making and forming.
but requiring it is not good. again u limit the people. albeit with good intentions. u wish everyone was more involved but that's not possible right now. instead of limiting who can vote u should encourage more to get into it.
First of all I think a kind of model that could solve the problems addressed so far (and some other too) the general knowledge test would be based on the recent things and basic things. Some pros and cons because of the previous government can also be included.
Test would not be long i.e. it would last for a short duration. It would be accessible to all voters. The display and reading of questions can be oral and written with accordance to the voters.
*Firstly, this would ensure that the people who are voting are not just manipulated people who just came to vote because of some personal benefit, and would check whether they are concerned citizens.
*Secondly, it would promote the general layout and importance of knowing basic things.
*Thirdly, many problems addressed so far can just be removed by improving the general model and provide no absolute arguments.
really because last time something like this happened it was called racist. it was when black people couldn't vote. they just became free but we put out a reading test. something at that time they couldn't possibly pass. all people should have a say. not just one section of anybody.
No, instead concerned citizens would choose the people who would form government. The ideal model of it would be accessible to all voters.
then it wouldn't be the people controlling the gov.. it would be the educated and wealthy.