Should there be an aptitude test for voters?

[Sorcerer]

That is a bit harsh. I might disagree with someones opinions, but I can't say they are wrong or less valid than mine.

Maybe my wording could've been better. I don't really mean it in the sense that some opinions are less valid than others, nor are people's entitlement to opinions any less than others, but demonstrably many people's opinions are clearly less informed than others. One of the most frustrating things I've seen on social media every time there's a news story about an impending heatwave is the ever so annoying "it's called summer" and "something something 1976".

These are people (or are they bots? They all seem to say the same thing in perfect rhythm) who have the same voting power as the climate scientists who studied for decades and realised that in the UK, tropical temperatures in what is meant to be at temperate ocean-influenced climate are not normal, and many of our warmest summers have been in the past ten years. That of course is a very easy example to pick from but I think it demonstrates my point better.

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.

I think this is more of an inherent problem of first past the post voting, which I can definitely agree is outdated and not fit-for-purpose in an increasingly multi-party Parliament living in a safe seat. I live in among the most safest Labour seats in the country, so my vote might not matter as much one in a key marginal. But like you I always still turnout to the ballot box. In my opinion, census-based proportional representation with no aptitude tests is the best form of a democratic system.

 

[m79900]

@Doctor Pepper Bro, how stuck up can you get? Even if you don't agree with someone's opinion, that doesn't mean it's less valid than yours, at the end of the day, if as many people as there are are supporting Brexit, Reform, etc then that's what should happen. It's hardly like all these would fail your test anyway.

 

[jfollows]

Bro, how stuck up can you get? Even if you don't agree with someone's opinion, that doesn't mean it's less valid than yours, at the end of the day, if as many people as there are are supporting Brexit, Reform, etc then that's what should happen. It's hardly like all these would fail your test anyway.

Agreed, I’m sad about Brexit and the rise of Reform, but I don’t complain that they don’t reflect some kind of electoral view.
I also don’t really understand why people fall out over it. My sister has different opinions to her husband, but we talk about it and agree to disagree. Not a problem.
Our system generated more votes against mine in the past and will continue to do so.
The only thing I can’t tolerate (not here) was earlier in the year when a Reform supporter told me I hadn’t bothered to properly understand their manifesto and if I had done so I would have supported them. I don’t think so. I regretted trying to engage them in a reasonable conversation.

 

[DerekC]

Be careful what you wish for! As has already been said, it's the thin end of a wedge and you can see a Trumpist/Farageist government (or for that matter an extreme left wing one) turning any sort of test into a political filter, carefully designed to block the opposition.

 

[Tester]

Reads that *some* people think this more like a test of "Citizenship" than aptitude.

Not sure what I think about that for the natural-born, given to obtain status as a naturalised citizen it is usual to need to pass such a test ...

My brother (UK citizen) came across the UK Citizenship Test - did it informally, and failed.

Sent the link to my mum (UK citizen) - she did it informally, and failed.

Passed it to me (UK citizen) - I did it informally, and failed.

 

[jfollows]

My brother (UK citizen) came across the UK Citizenship Test - did it informally, and failed.

Sent the link to my mum (UK citizen) - she did it informally, and failed.

Passed it to me (UK citizen) - I did it informally, and failed.

Maybe none of you read the book first? There’s a lot of stuff in it which you need to remember to pass the test which is totally irrelevant in real life.

My husband did it in 2000 and passed, and when I’d read the book and did sample tests myself I passed.

Maybe it’s changed since then, or maybe it unfairly benefits people who study and do exams.

 

[Krokodil]

Maybe it’s changed since then, or maybe it unfairly benefits people who study and do exams.

It's definitely changed since then. It probably unfairly benefits people who do well in pub quizzes.

 

[87electric]

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.

You mean those policies that are understood by myself and a majority that are voted on that might be reneged upon when said Party is elected? That is a reality we’ve all seen.
Politics is dishonest at the best of times. Don‘t take away a vote because someone does not understand it. Educate the voters more. You’ve got it twisted. Help people. Do not exclude them.

 

[66701GBRF]

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).

I think you will find that is so you reduce the risk of directly killing or maiming someone (or yourself), not even remotely comparable to voting.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why not? We don't let people hold any other position of responsibility without some form of test.

Parenthood.

 

[Tester]

Parenthood.

Don't open that can of worms!

 

[Bayum]

Hearing some of the people at the Reform conference and this mass lemming walk to put flags up ‘to take our country back’, I wish there was some form of aptitude test for voting. However, where do you end? What would the assessed content be? How would it be weighted? How is it made accessible for all? Are we ready and willing to remove a democratic vote from a portion of the electorate?

 

[Krokodil]

Parenthood.

Perhaps before people are issued with Breeding Licences they should take exams. Both written and practical...

 

[3141]

Hearing some of the people at the Reform conference and this mass lemming walk to put flags up ‘to take our country back’, I wish there was some form of aptitude test for voting. However, where do you end? What would the assessed content be? How would it be weighted? How is it made accessible for all? Are we ready and willing to remove a democratic vote from a portion of the electorate?

I think that's a very sound and thoughtful set of observations. There are genuine issues which this thread has raised. They are very difficult if not impossible to resolve, and any change that might be made to improve one aspect of the situation is likely to raise new questions.

There are some posts here in which supporters or opponents of the OP's views don't seem to be able to appreciate that there might be reasons for somebody to advocate a different opinion from their own.

I am not arguing against the idea of education aiming to develop critical thinking, but it's been around for decades and plenty of uncritical thinking and outright prejudice remains. Teachers themselves may have strong views on issues. Parents have views which influence their children. The intention may be clear but the implementation is surrounded by a great many complexities.

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps before people are issued with Breeding Licences they should take exams. Both written and practical...

You say in jest but I would like the state to put more effort into getting first time parents into antenatal classes. Was so helpful for us!

 

[brad465]

Don't open that can of worms!

Perhaps before people are issued with Breeding Licences they should take exams. Both written and practical...

You say in jest but I would like the state to put more effort into getting first time parents into antenatal classes. Was so helpful for us!

Enjoy:

 

[Railwaycat]

Hearing some of the people at the Reform conference and this mass lemming walk to put flags up ‘to take our country back’, I wish there was some form of aptitude test for voting. However, where do you end? What would the assessed content be? How would it be weighted? How is it made accessible for all? Are we ready and willing to remove a democratic vote from a portion of the electorate?

As you said, where will it end (it simply isn't practical anyway). However, one portion of the electorate that could lose the right to vote, at least for a length of time, would be those with criminal convictions for violence, sex and hate crime. Deform might lose a few votes there.

 

[m0ffy]

The most I would support would be a single multi choice question about what you’re actually voting for, but I think this could be better achieved through better voter education. Too many people reach the polling booth without understanding what level of government they’re electing, what it does, and how it impacts their lives. I’d do away with voter ID requirements as well.

I appreciate this is controversial, but I think local democracy, as it stands, is an utter waste of resources. I’d much rather see more democratic involvement on the what and how, and have those decisions implemented by council management. I’d still have an elected board overseeing the council, but non party-political, more aligned to a board of governors, and with term limits.

 

[Gloster]

As you said, where will it end (it simply isn't practical anyway). However, one portion of the electorate that could lose the right to vote, at least for a length of time, would be those with criminal convictions for violence, sex and hate crime. Deform might lose a few votes there.

As far as I can see convicted prisoners cannot vote during the period of their detention; in Scotland it seems that this doesn’t apply to sentences of less than 12 months. Persons convicted of corrupt practice can’t vote for five years after conviction, while it is three years for an illegal practice. Members of the House of Lords can’t vote: I am fairly this only applies to active members.

 

[Bayum]

Persons convicted of corrupt practice can’t vote for five years after conviction,

So a parliament pretty much.

 

[Harpo]

It's definitely changed since then. It probably unfairly benefits people who do well in pub quizzes.

Maybe the test is designed to help the pub trade by only letting in good pub quizzers?

 

[Bantamzen]

mods note - split from here:

Reform UK discussion

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.

Ah yes the "some people are too thick to vote" ideology which usually evolves from "only people that agree with me should be allowed to vote".

This is not how democracy works. If you want people to vote for your party, make the argument, listen to people's concerns and shape policy around them. That doesn't mean you have to pander to every prejudice out there, but you have to be able to listen to all arguments and reach a common ground.

Sadly neither the lefties or the righties seem capable of this any more. It seems it's more important to be on the "right" side of the argument no matter what, and blame the other side for all the country's ills. This is one of the reasons why I have no political allegiance to any party, I will vote on the basis of the quality of the candidate, their ability to listen and help shape their party's policies and their understanding of the underlying issues that drive so much of today's troubles. If they outright dismiss people that don't agree with them, or claim the opposition is just too thick to vote, that's my vote lost. This isn't a school playground, it's real life and there are real issues to deal with.

 

[PeterC]

Why do I keep thinking of the "literacy tests" formerly used by some US states to deny the vote to black people?

 

[DarloRich]

Clear rules are really obvious:

• Educational standards
• Property ownership
• Financial standing
• Citizenship/civics test
• History of voting ( in that you cant just turn up for the big one - right to vote removed if you do not vote in, say, 75% of elections)
• Appointment of local coordinator/czar to dela with any issues. ( aka if i don't like the look of you you aint voting!)

CLEARLY - I will be fine. The rest of you.............

 

[tbtc]

Not surprising to see a debate about this, I've seen similar sentiments on social media, almost always from the 'kinder gentler' folx

Maybe I'm old but I remember when the boot was on the other foot

Restricting the vote to only those 'suitable' (and therefore removing it from lots of poorer people) used to be a Right Wing issue (whether pre WW1 in the UK or as late as the sixties in the USA given race relations there)

Free Speech used to be a Left Wing issue that they surrendered to the Right

Universal Basic Income used to be Right Wing issue (as a means to justify reducing benefits/ a Flat Tax on income/ a Poll Tax where everyone paid the same amount to their local council) but became Left Wing

Womens Rights used to be a Left Wing issue but has increasingly become a Right Wing one, whilst the word 'indigenous' used to be a Right Wing dog whistle term to mean 'White British' but now seems to be a Left Wing term for native peoples in other countries

Look at the USA, where 'pro Russia' had gone from being a Republican slogan to criticise Democrats to becoming the opposite

It's funny how 'people shouldn't be allowed to vote if they don't meet my definition of intelligence' gets called Progressive these days whilst 'people shouldn't be allowed to vote if they don't have satisfactory government ID' is apparently Fascist

(I'm sure those demanding such restrictions will ensure that the bar is low enough to ensure that they themselves still qualify to vote, just as the vast majority of those demanding we significantly increase taxes on the rich don't include themselves in that bracket)

However, whilst I don't expect to change anyone's mind, I will offer one word of caution for younger members on here. A lot of modern student-influenced Left Wing politics probably looks fine to you right now because you say the approved thing on all of the big causes (Climate Crisis/ Gaza Genocide), you wear the approved lanyards/badges. You probably think you'll never move from red to blue, even though most of those frightfully fascist pensioners you currently see as your enemy started out on the Left too. If you are currently comfortable with Purity Tests (that you'd currently pass), you'll be older one day, and when you've become a parent/ home owner etc (with the knock on effects on your worldview) there'll be another generation will have their own definitions of 'Purity'. Your children's generation may well despise you, just as you despised your parents generation. Its always been that way. Still, I'm sure you'll be different (just like everyone over thirty five once thought they'd never sell out)

 

[Bayum]

Not surprising to see a debate about this, I've seen similar sentiments on social media, almost always from the 'kinder gentler' folx

Maybe I'm old but I remember when the boot was on the other foot

Restricting the vote to only those 'suitable' (and therefore removing it from lots of poorer people) used to be a Right Wing issue (whether pre WW1 in the UK or as late as the sixties in the USA given race relations there)

Free Speech used to be a Left Wing issue that they surrendered to the Right

Universal Basic Income used to be Right Wing issue (as a means to justify reducing benefits/ a Flat Tax on income/ a Poll Tax where everyone paid the same amount to their local council) but became Left Wing

Womens Rights used to be a Left Wing issue but has increasingly become a Right Wing one, whilst the word 'indigenous' used to be a Right Wing dog whistle term to mean 'White British' but now seems to be a Left Wing term for native peoples in other countries

Look at the USA, where 'pro Russia' had gone from being a Republican slogan to criticise Democrats to becoming the opposite

It's funny how 'people shouldn't be allowed to vote if they don't meet my definition of intelligence' gets called Progressive these days whilst 'people shouldn't be allowed to vote if they don't have satisfactory government ID' is apparently Fascist

(I'm sure those demanding such restrictions will ensure that the bar is low enough to ensure that they themselves still qualify to vote, just as the vast majority of those demanding we significantly increase taxes on the rich don't include themselves in that bracket)

However, whilst I don't expect to change anyone's mind, I will offer one word of caution for younger members on here. A lot of modern student-influenced Left Wing politics probably looks fine to you right now because you say the approved thing on all of the big causes (Climate Crisis/ Gaza Genocide), you wear the approved lanyards/badges. You probably think you'll never move from red to blue, even though most of those frightfully fascist pensioners you currently see as your enemy started out on the Left too. If you are currently comfortable with Purity Tests (that you'd currently pass), you'll be older one day, and when you've become a parent/ home owner etc (with the knock on effects on your worldview) there'll be another generation will have their own definitions of 'Purity'. Your children's generation may well despise you, just as you despised your parents generation. Its always been that way. Still, I'm sure you'll be different (just like everyone over thirty five once thought they'd never sell out)

The Tories did that by themselves. Hiking tuition fees, restricting access to the housing market, lack of building homes and hospitals… Need I go on?

 

[styles]

The Tories did that by themselves. Hiking tuition fees, restricting access to the housing market, lack of building homes and hospitals… Need I go on?

I mean you can pick and choose these statements about the other parties as well.

Taking the first one for example, tuition fees:

Introduced by Labour in 1998
Trebled by Labour in 2004
Just shy of Trebled by Conservatives and Lib Dems in 2012
Frozen by the Conservatives in 2018
Unfrozen by Labour in 2025.

The three main parties in Westminster have all nearly trebled tuition fees during their time in office.

I dare even say that it's this collective failure on various issues by the main three parties which is leading to significant support for Reform.

If there was a political history test before people could receive their ballot paper, most people would fail it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Universal Basic Income used to be Right Wing issue (as a means to justify reducing benefits/ a Flat Tax on income/ a Poll Tax where everyone paid the same amount to their local council) but became Left Wing

...no? Those aren't the same thing at all! One is aimed at providing basic human dignity to everyone and a base level of income, the other is just taxing everyone regardless, which impoverishes many by design.

Womens Rights used to be a Left Wing issue but has increasingly become a Right Wing one

No it hasn't, and you are only telling on yourself if you think the Right are the ones who care more about the rights of women and talk about it more.

, whilst the word 'indigenous' used to be a Right Wing dog whistle term to mean 'White British' but now seems to be a Left Wing term for native peoples in other countries

Not in this country it isn't.

However, whilst I don't expect to change anyone's mind, I will offer one word of caution for younger members on here. A lot of modern student-influenced Left Wing politics probably looks fine to you right now because you say the approved thing on all of the big causes (Climate Crisis/ Gaza Genocide)

Oh yes, opposing genocide is only an "approved thing" and not fundamentally the only proper human response to, er, genocide. Oh yes, wow, perhaps part of the mystery of getting older is you might suddenly start to think genocide is fine. Isn't getting older fun? Can't wait to be 40 next year.

If you are currently comfortable with Purity Tests (that you'd currently pass), you'll be older one day, and when you've become a parent/ home owner etc (with the knock on effects on your worldview) there'll be another generation will have their own definitions of 'Purity'. Your children's generation may well despise you, just as you despised your parents generation. Its always been that way. Still, I'm sure you'll be different (just like everyone over thirty five once thought they'd never sell out)

Probably not. People of my generation and the one behind (Millennials, Gen Z) will generally not hold all the financial keys in the way Boomers do today and the power relationships between generations will inevitably become flatter as a result. Western gerontocracy is relatively new and will be fleeting. There will always be tension between generations but it won't be like today.

 

[Krokodil]

I wonder though if party affiliation should be removed from the ballot paper. We elect individual MPs, but many people treat it as a popularity contest for party leaders. If they were just faced with a list of names, they'd have to do some research beforehand.

 

[styles]

I wonder though if party affiliation should be removed from the ballot paper. We elect individual MPs, but many people treat it as a popularity contest for party leaders. If they were just faced with a list of names, they'd have to do some research beforehand.

But MPs once elected, assuming they are party affiliated which almost all are, are subject to the party whips and vote along party lines. There's of course the odd rebellion or free vote but the big ticket items not really.

In that respect, rather than trying to shoehorn the idea of voting for an individual representative for an often mixed demographics geographical area, I'd suggest it would be better to recognise that it's the voting system which needs to change.