Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The people using the phrase "hurty words" are part of the electorate. They might not be "worth listening to" but their vote at a general election is worth just as much as the next person's. So any political party that wants to get their vote absolutely needs to listen to them.
As we have one for the other parties... Reform are campaigning in the Kent County Council election as they are elsewhere. From their local social media pages they seem to be doing door to door campaigning more than the Tories. They have a series of Facebook posts with a lot of likes / comments...
www.railforums.co.uk
Quite honestly it's high time we had people pass some form of aptitude test before they are allowed to vote.
Why not? We don't let people hold any other position of responsibility without some form of test. We don't let people get behind the wheel without passing a driving test (although that also could do with tightening up if you ask me).
It's become as clear as day over the past ten years that some people are too stupid to be tasked with making decisions that affect all of our lives.
People voted for brexit, despite every piece of reliable information suggesting it would damage the country - and that prediction was proved correct. But they're still insisting it was the best thing since sliced bread, despite the facts - and worse, have now taken to pretending that it never happened at all! And why did they vote for it? Did they weighed up the facts and made a decision based on that? Oh no, because they were TOLD to and because of their preconceived prejudice.
And those same people are now ranting about the consequences of the brexit that THEY voted for! Ranting about boats - a problem created by brexit!
We've just had those same people vote Deform into control of local councils, which anyone with a brain could have foreseen would be a terrible idea. And guess what, they've proved to be just as incompetent liars as any fool could have predicted.
Now we've got them supporting Deform into government, despite the whole party being composed of lazy, incompetent liars. Farage, as well as being a hypocrite of the highest order, is now openly saying he's prepared to start a war with France, as his way of "dealing" with the boats. And people want to put this guy into Number ten? Madness.
Why not? We don't let people hold any other position of responsibility without some form of test. We don't let people get behind the wheel without passing a driving test (although that also could do with tightening up if you ask me).
It's become as clear as day over the past ten years that some people are too stupid to be tasked with making decisions that affect all of our lives.
People voted for brexit, despite every piece of reliable information suggesting it would damage the country - and that prediction was proved correct. But they're still insisting it was the best thing since sliced bread, despite the facts - and worse, have now taken to pretending that it never happened at all! And why did they vote for it? Did they weighed up the facts and made a decision based on that? Oh no, because they were TOLD to and because of their preconceived prejudice.
And those same people are now ranting about the consequences of the brexit that THEY voted for! Ranting about boats - a problem created by brexit!
We've just had those same people vote Deform into control of local councils, which anyone with a brain could have foreseen would be a terrible idea. And guess what, they've proved to be just as incompetent liars as any fool could have predicted.
Now we've got them supporting Deform into government, despite the whole party being composed of lazy, incompetent liars. Farage, as well as being a hypocrite of the highest order, is now openly saying he's prepared to start a war with France, as his way of "dealing" with the boats. And people want to put this guy into Number ten? Madness.
Because any attempts to restrict people's right to vote is against the very principle of being a liberal democracy. I understand people might take issue and be frustrated with the idea that the vote of some drunk at the pub is equal to that of a political scientist or economist, but if you don't believe that should be the case then you shouldn't call yourself an advocate of democracy, and you should accept that you yourself might not be qualified either.
You seem to think that these tests will be fair and unbiased, but in reality it's practically gifting politicians the power to disenfranchise their opponents. I also find it curious that people who often advocate for voting tests just happen to be among those that they believe will pass. It's essentially the technocratic version of "it's okay, the leopards won't eat my face", ironically an attitude that is also sometimes shared with some right-wing voters.
Why not? We don't let people hold any other position of responsibility without some form of test. We don't let people get behind the wheel without passing a driving test (although that also could do with tightening up if you ask me).
It's become as clear as day over the past ten years that some people are too stupid to be tasked with making decisions that affect all of our lives.
People voted for brexit, despite every piece of reliable information suggesting it would damage the country - and that prediction was proved correct. But they're still insisting it was the best thing since sliced bread, despite the facts - and worse, have now taken to pretending that it never happened at all! And why did they vote for it? Did they weighed up the facts and made a decision based on that? Oh no, because they were TOLD to and because of their preconceived prejudice.
And those same people are now ranting about the consequences of the brexit that THEY voted for! Ranting about boats - a problem created by brexit!
We've just had those same people vote Deform into control of local councils, which anyone with a brain could have foreseen would be a terrible idea. And guess what, they've proved to be just as incompetent liars as any fool could have predicted.
Now we've got them supporting Deform into government, despite the whole party being composed of lazy, incompetent liars. Farage, as well as being a hypocrite of the highest order, is now openly saying he's prepared to start a war with France, as his way of "dealing" with the boats. And people want to put this guy into Number ten? Madness.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Guess what the latest classic from Farage is. Apparently he doesn't turn up to Parliament because "it doesn't serve me very well". This cretin thinks Parliament is there to serve HIM! No chum, you don't turn up because you are a shirker, who would rather fly half way around the world to be with your chum, Trump, and lobby the Americans to put sanctions on your own country!
The other issue with limiting voting by any kind of test is that historically such things have been used to disenfranchise specific groups of people. Whose to say that if Labour introduce a test next year, reform win the next election and change the test to be in favour of their ideology (say by making a question about trans people with the "right answer" being transphobic, or add a specifically racist question etc).
Obviously, you don't get a single political party to construct the tests, you get an independent body to do it. And obviously not using questions related to opinions, or identity. A basic test of competency and knowledge of what is being voted on should suffice.
Obviously, you don't get a single political party to construct the tests, you get an independent body to do it. And obviously not using questions related to opinions, or identity. A basic test of competency and knowledge of what is being voted on should suffice.
As soon as you start making rules about who can and can't vote (particularly if those rules are rather less black & white than age or criminal convictions, both of which have themselves attracted controversy in the past) then it's the thin end of the wedge.
Obviously, you don't get a single political party to construct the tests, you get an independent body to do it. And obviously not using questions related to opinions, or identity. A basic test of competency and knowledge of what is being voted on should suffice.
Please enlighten us: what does this "basic test of competency and knowledge" actually consist of? What sort of questions would you set in order to determine someone's right to vote?
Requiring disenfranchised voters to sit an aptitude test before getting a ballot paper sounds like a sure fire way to bolster support margins for parties who position themselves as anti-establishment.
Please enlighten us: what does this "basic test of competency and knowledge" actually consist of? What sort of questions would you set in order to determine someone's right to vote?
Last time I voted, there were party logos by the candidates names, so don't even need to be able to read, which is very low threshold of competency to vote.
Last time I voted, there were party logos by the candidates names, so don't even need to be able to read, which is very low threshold of competency to vote.
I work in polling stations on election days. Can tell you that in most, if not all, elections there are still people coming through the door asking, "How do I vote for that (insert party leader name here) fella?". We can't actually answer that question if they're not a candidate for that specific election in that specific constituency, to avoid perceptions of bias. We can just read out the names and party names on the ballot paper out in the order they appear on the ballot paper.
In the most recent by-election I helped in we had a couple of people actually walk out when they've found out Farage wasn't an option. There was a Reform candidate, but not sure why they didn't vote for them.
Why not? We don't let people hold any other position of responsibility without some form of test. We don't let people get behind the wheel without passing a driving test (although that also could do with tightening up if you ask me).
It's become as clear as day over the past ten years that some people are too stupid to be tasked with making decisions that affect all of our lives.
People voted for brexit, despite every piece of reliable information suggesting it would damage the country - and that prediction was proved correct. But they're still insisting it was the best thing since sliced bread, despite the facts - and worse, have now taken to pretending that it never happened at all! And why did they vote for it? Did they weighed up the facts and made a decision based on that? Oh no, because they were TOLD to and because of their preconceived prejudice.
And those same people are now ranting about the consequences of the brexit that THEY voted for! Ranting about boats - a problem created by brexit!
We've just had those same people vote Deform into control of local councils, which anyone with a brain could have foreseen would be a terrible idea. And guess what, they've proved to be just as incompetent liars as any fool could have predicted.
Now we've got them supporting Deform into government, despite the whole party being composed of lazy, incompetent liars. Farage, as well as being a hypocrite of the highest order, is now openly saying he's prepared to start a war with France, as his way of "dealing" with the boats. And people want to put this guy into Number ten? Madness.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Guess what the latest classic from Farage is. Apparently he doesn't turn up to Parliament because "it doesn't serve me very well". This cretin thinks Parliament is there to serve HIM! No chum, you don't turn up because you are a shirker, who would rather fly half way around the world to be with your chum, Trump, and lobby the Americans to put sanctions on your own country!
There was a 72% turnout for the 2016 Brexit referendum nationally.
The turnout for Lincolnshire's mayoral and council election this year was 29% ie 71% of eligible voters in Lincolnshire did NOT bother to vote at all hence we have a Deform mayor and a county council.
This has to be one of the most arrogant and deranged threads I've come across. It must be tiring being so sure of yourself Doctor Pepper. One thing's for sure, you would fail my aptitude test with your contempt for differing opinion.
in most, if not all, elections there are still people coming through the door asking, "How do I vote for that (insert party leader name here) fella?" ....... they're not a candidate for that specific election in that specific constituency ........
we had a couple of people actually walk out when they've found out Farage wasn't an option.
How small a percentage of the total of voters were those people?
Do people making those sorts of mistakes tend to want to support any particular party, or tend to be proportionate to other local voters choices?
I take it that the intending Farrage supporters were probably not immigrants. That anyone old enough to vote and not a recent immigrant should have that poor a grasp of the electoral system is certainly worrying.
Nevil Shute had an interesting idea in his novel In the Wet: the seven votes. It should be remembered that it was written in the early 1950s by a man in his early fifties looking thirty years into the future.
Everyone gets one vote when they reach twenty-one.
There are then additional votes that can be given for:
Higher education, including being an officer in the armed services
Earning your living abroad for two years
Raising two children to the age of fourteen without divorcing (both parents get the extra vote)
Having a fairly high earned income in the year before the vote (Shute quotes £5000!)
Doing a genuine job for for the church
The seventh vote is specially awarded by the monarch for have distinguished themselves.
The basic idea is that those who have wider experience and have greater responsibilities will give greater consideration to their voting choice.
At the moment politicians can’t mislead Parliament but have no similar obligations outside of it. Put the onus on politicians to be truthful at all times and give the electorate more confidence.
Aptitude tests for voters would backfire, but there are ways I think we can reduce the proportion of poorly-educated voters. Chiefly, invest in education across the board and introduce critical thinking education at schools and in the workplace. For retrospective education of adults, I would suggest some sort of qualification/training programme targeted towards those out of work long-term, or on low paid jobs, where the test covers key skills/knowledge required both in the workplace and wider world, so would include critical thinking and key literacy and numeracy (perhaps similar to the ALAN test I did in Year 11). Anyone who passes the test is given a grant for at least a few grand, which incentivises them to both take the test and try to do well in it. The cost of this would be repaid through the claimants going into better paid work and thus paying more tax, and/or reducing payments of jobseekers allowance/other unemployed benefits.
How small a percentage of the total of voters were those people?
Do people making those sorts of mistakes tend to want to support any particular party, or tend to be proportionate to other local voters choices?
I take it that the intending Farrage supporters were probably not immigrants. That anyone old enough to vote and not a recent immigrant should have that poor a grasp of the electoral system is certainly worrying.
Oh a tiny minority. Though I would say most people who feel the need to tell us why they're voting for X or Y (as if we care) talk exclusively about parties and their leaders, rather than candidates, which to me is really the evidence that FPTP isn't the right voting system.
I would say it's reasonably well split between Labour and Reform at the moment, but I will add that I haven't worked a polling station in an area Conservatives dominated. Even in London, people who would come in and complain about Khan tended to say they would be voting Green, Reform, etc. Maybe in Tory strongholds they get more Tory voters saying such things.
I obviously don't know 100% that the Farage supporters have been British-born, but I would strongly suspect it yeah. In one recent election we had two desiring Reform voters make passive aggressive remarks about the two Polish voters in front of them, when told they weren't allowed to vote in UK parliamentary elections, were told by the voters behind them, "They shouldn't even be allowed in this country." Put our conflict resolution skills to test.
A non-trivial number of people come in and don't know how to complete the ballot. I have more sympathy for that these days because I've worked stations in London where there's the supplementary vote system, a PR system, and a FPTP system. I live in Scotland now and we have STV thrown into the mix. And they keep changing, e.g. the Conservative government forced London to ditch the supplementary vote system, then you have 17 year olds who voted in a local council election up here get told they can't vote in the general election some months later. Then for UK parliamentary elections you need photo ID, but for your MSP by-election you don't. It's certainly messy for something we don't expect voters to care about for years at a time.
For supporters of an aptitude test, there should not be one in and of itself, it should be tied to other qualifications to prevent abuse. A relatively good solution would be to only give the right to vote to those who pass Maths and English at GCSE, though this would also come with pitfalls.
For other ways of hobbling democracy we could look to something along the lines of the Prussian 3 class franchises where voters were grouped by tax revenue, and given the size of the modern state, there is an argument that those who fund it should be those with the most say.
Or one could grant extra votes to people seen as more responsible. Maybe you could be required to put location, age, car you drive, occupation and marital status into a online form that can then tell you how many votes you'll get based on supposed political reliability and "responsibility," like car insurance. (Obviously a terrible idea even more open for abuse than the last 2)
In Ireland the second chamber, the Senate is a mixture of appointees and elected member, six are University candidates who can only be voted for by graduates of those two universities!
In Ireland the second chamber, the Senate is a mixture of appointees and elected member, six are University candidates who can only be voted for by graduates of those two universities!
Oxford University elected 2 MPs until 1950. Cambridge University likewise. Again the electorate being graduates.
But, no, any kind of aptitude test or qualification before voting is bonkers. Parliament is supposed to represent everyone nowadays, not just those who have passed some kind of qualification.
However, I think if we made university graduate a minimum qualification for voting, we’d get much better governments than we have done. Reform and Boris wouldn’t have happened.
Or one could grant extra votes to people seen as more responsible. Maybe you could be required to put location, age, car you drive, occupation and marital status into a online form that can then tell you how many votes you'll get based on supposed political reliability and "responsibility," like car insurance. (Obviously a terrible idea even more open for abuse than the last 2)
However, I think if we made university graduate a minimum qualification for voting, we’d get much better governments than we have done. Reform and Boris wouldn’t have happened.
I disagree. Though more educated, students are also often young and naive without much understanding of the world and some of the nuances around certain subjects. Some of them don't even grow out of it either; Corbyn is a prime example of such a person with some of his foreign policy ideals. It's more excusable than a pensioner who thinks Farage is some kind of messiah of course, but I don't think graduates would inherently give us better governments.
Plus even among students the vote of a political science, economics or law graduate would be equal to that of a drama, art and media studies graduate which just brings us back to the inherent flaw of democracy in that everyone's vote is equal even if their opinions are not. But in any democratic system every citizen should have the same voting rights as each other, or you can't call it a true democracy. I would rather absolute monarchy than selective voting rights.
Plus even among students the vote of a political science, economics or law graduate would be equal to that of a drama, art and media studies graduate which just brings us back to the inherent flaw of democracy in that everyone's vote is equal even if their opinions are not. But in any democratic system every citizen should have the same voting rights as each other, or you can't call it a true democracy. I would rather absolute monarchy than selective voting rights.
Everyone’s vote is definitely not equal under our system, but I’m not disagreeing that everyone has the same voting rights. A vote for Labour in my constituency is as worthless as a vote for Conservative in Manchester Central, but neither stopped me from voting.
I don’t believe our voting system should be changed, just that it’s flawed.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.railforums.co.uk
