A licence to vote?

This probably won't ever be a runner, but what are people's thoughts about licensing votes? Before everyone goes mad saying it's undemocratic, check out the proposal:

It's a 15-20 min test, where you are asked really basic questions about politics in Ireland. Such as,
How many TD's sit in the Dail?
How long is a full term in office?
etc.

If you have a pass rate of 80% you get the right to vote, if you don't pass, you don't get to vote, but you can retake the test at any time.

As I say, it's really easy questions. What it will do is eliminate the voters that see an election as a popularity contest and a side positive, would increase voters education in regard to Irish politics.

I was discussing this with a mate last night and it was very strange to hear someone else put this idea forward. I do honestly believe in a licence to vote, but it's such a taboo to bring up, that myself and my friend were very reticent to bring it up to each other!

FWIW I would describe myself as a right wing leftie. I am at heart a leftie, but I see a lot of good things that can be carried over from the right.

Corsendonk

Papa Smut wrote: »

This probably won't ever be a runner, but what are people's thoughts about licensing votes? Before everyone goes mad saying it's undemocratic, check out the proposal:

It's a 15-20 min test, where you are asked really basic questions about politics in Ireland. Such as,
How many TD's sit in the Dail?
How long is a full term in office?
etc.

If you have a pass rate of 80% you get the right to vote, if you don't pass, you don't get to vote, but you can retake the test at any time.

As I say, it's really easy questions. What it will do is eliminate the voters that see an election as a popularity contest and a side positive, would increase voters education in regard to Irish politics.

I was discussing this with a mate last night and it was very strange to hear someone else put this idea forward. I do honestly believe in a licence to vote, but it's such a taboo to bring up, that myself and my friend were very reticent to bring it up to each other!

FWIW I would describe myself as a right wing leftie. I am at heart a leftie, but I see a lot of good things that can be carried over from the right.

How much????? Sounds like another voting machine crossed with the Provisional Driving License Theory Test to create jobs. Shouldn't schools have covered this off in civics classes?

mikemac

They used to have this in the United States and in some areas made the questions so ridiculously obscure and difficult it excluded a lot of people.
Which was the idea all along

So it'd have to be same standard questions everywhere and I think you've addressed this

Don't schools have civics class anymore?

civics class is all well and good for future generations, but what about the people over 30? As an aside, is Civics class complusory? We didn't have it my time...



...I feel old

Liam Byrne

The sample questions listed could be answered by almost anyone regardless of whether they had a genuine interest in Ireland's future and sustainability.

Even some FF apologists could answer those (although the "how many TDs" might catch them unless it was clarified that it was how many should be there when no-one blocks the democratic process)

Liam Byrne

Papa Smut wrote: »

civics class is all well and good for future generations, but what about the people over 30? As an aside, is Civics class complusory? We didn't have it my time...



...I feel old

We had civics class, and I'm over 30!

Bog

Who decides which questions are suitable for assessment? If it is the current goverment, then surely questions can be weighted in favour of their common electorate.

Either everyone has the right to vote, or no-one does.

Bog

Bog wrote: »

Who decides which questions are suitable for assessment? If it is the current goverment, then surely questions can be weighted in favour of their common electorate.

Either everyone has the right to vote, or no-one does.

A cross party commission?

mikemac

Let the same group that produce the leaflets for a referendum do it. They make a big issue of being neutral in what they publish

Referendum Commission

Corsendonk

Papa Smut wrote: »

civics class is all well and good for future generations, but what about the people over 30? As an aside, is Civics class complusory? We didn't have it my time...



...I feel old

Did you have little chalk boards and short trousers???:D Civics was compulsory in my school. If they haven't worked out how the voting system works by the time their 30 I don't see the point.

sceptre

While the cynic in me (which ebbs and flows) thinks it'd create a better tomorrow, there's one perfectly good democratic reason we don't do this: it's potentially open to scary abuse. At the moment, if you're a citizen, resident and over 18, you get a vote in every election going. Introduce a pre-vote test or any other limitation on who can vote and you open the door to a system where questions can be set in a manner to deliberately disenfranchise unsympathetic people. And why stop with a test - shouldn't people who pay lots of tax get extra votes? Should people who don't financially contribute to society at all even get a vote? People who actually liked RTE's Celebrity Farm surely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a polling station...

Yeah, I'm using a slippery slope argument. Sometimes they're appropriate.

Then there's the other side of the coin: I'm completely confident that at ten years of age I was perfectly capable of understanding how the system works, any reasonable questions on basic constitutional provisions etc. Certainly better than plenty of people who were five times my age at the time. I'm sure there are at least a few ten year olds who are similarly aware. Shouldn't someone like that be allowed to vote?

Essentially, the current system, silly as it may seem where people who have no idea of almost anything get the same vote as someone who's got a great idea of everything, works. It's a simple test: have you reached a certain age. That's one of the core tenets of modern democracy.

bleg

Great idea, just so long as there is a quota of licences for women.

sceptre

sceptre wrote: »

While the cynic in me (which ebbs and flows) thinks it'd create a better tomorrow, there's one perfectly good democratic reason we don't do this: it's potentially open to scary abuse. At the moment, if you're a citizen, resident and over 18, you get a vote in every election going. Introduce a pre-vote test or any other limitation on who can vote and you open the door to a system where questions can be set in a manner to deliberately disenfranchise unsympathetic people. And why stop with a test - shouldn't people who pay lots of tax get extra votes? Should people who don't financially contribute to society at all even get a vote? People who actually liked RTE's Celebrity Farm surely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a polling station...

Yeah, I'm using a slippery slope argument. Sometimes they're appropriate.

Then there's the other side of the coin: I'm completely confident that at ten years of age I was perfectly capable of understanding how the system works, any reasonable questions on basic constitutional provisions etc. Certainly better than plenty of people who were five times my age at the time. I'm sure there are at least a few ten year olds who are similarly aware. Shouldn't someone like that be allowed to vote?

Essentially, the current system, silly as it may seem where people who have no idea of almost anything get the same vote as someone who's got a great idea of everything, works. It's a simple test: have you reached a certain age. That's one of the core tenets of modern democracy.

That is indeed an incredibly slippery argument

I don't see why you need to bring in the finance into it It's just simply, you pass a simple test, when ever you want to to vote. The referendum commission come up with the questions and they should be easy enough.

You may have had a good grasp of politics, but I would hazard to say the majority don't. In a straw poll with 10 of my friends (uber reliable I know :pac: ) 7 didn't have a clue how the transfer of votes work. Surely you should know that (which I would consider a basic)?

CokaColumbo

I was thinking about it yesterday and I think it would be appropriate to have a very basic test to determine if you are capable of casting even a slightly informed vote or not. As a previous poster pointed out, questions could be set by a cross-party committee and may involve simple exercises like matching a list of party leaders to their respective political groups.
At the very least, all attempts to persuade politically uninterested people should be discouraged because their ill-informed votes will have repercussions on the rest of the constituency.

Bucklesman

Why should ignorance of the political system exclude a person from voting? Or, put it another way, why should a person get a vote based on their ability to memorize political trivia?

Not only is the idea of a voter test á la Jim Crow era Alabama completely undemocratic, it's completely impractical. If you're going to turn voter registration into a process as convoluted as doing the driver theory test, people won't bother doing it.

It's hard enough to get people to vote as it is. Currently, registration can happen on your doorstep in a matter of seconds, or by filling out a short form.

Let's not forget that administering tests costs money. Are people going to have to pay for their voting rights, or will we fund this through taxes? Do we need to keep test centres open in every constituency in the country for every working day of the year?

A voter registration test would disenfranchise poor and young voters just because of the extra hassle involved. Of course, the right wing would just love that.

loldog

Nope, I'm against this - too much risk of abuse. I would be in favour of compulsory voting though, like in Australia.

.

CokaColumbo

Bucklesman wrote: »

Why should ignorance of the political system exclude a person from voting? Or, put it another way, why should a person get a vote based on their ability to memorize political trivia?

Not only is the idea of a voter test á la Jim Crow era Alabama completely undemocratic, it's completely impractical. If you're going to turn voter registration into a process as convoluted as doing the driver theory test, people won't bother doing it.

It's hard enough to get people to vote as it is. Currently, registration can happen on your doorstep in a matter of seconds, or by filling out a short form.

Let's not forget that administering tests costs money. Are people going to have to pay for their voting rights, or will we fund this through taxes? Do we need to keep test centres open in every constituency in the country for every working day of the year?

A voter registration test would disenfranchise poor and young voters just because of the extra hassle involved. Of course, the right wing would just love that.

Your post is pathetic. The right-wing? Jim crow era tests? Undemocratic? That's a seriously inept understanding of what the posters have been advocating for on this thread. The point of having a basic test would be to place the process of electing representatives into the hands of citizens with a fundamental understanding of the political landscape of Ireland. It is wrong, in my opinion, that the opposite should be the case; that the candidates with flash posters, airy promises and youth-inspiring calls for 'hope' etc. have a better chance of motivating people to vote for them because the voting base consists, to a degree, of people with what is an essentially retarded grasp of anything political in Ireland.

Sir Oxman

Papa Smut wrote: »

That is indeed an incredibly slippery argument

I don't see why you need to bring in the finance into it It's just simply, you pass a simple test, when ever you want to to vote. The referendum commission come up with the questions and they should be easy enough.

You may have had a good grasp of politics, but I would hazard to say the majority don't. In a straw poll with 10 of my friends (uber reliable I know :pac: ) 7 didn't have a clue how the transfer of votes work. Surely you should know that (which I would consider a basic)?

To be fair, our transfer system is a bit unintelligible/complicated at first glance, which is what most would give it.
To make your vote more likely to work to it's max takes quite a bit of figuring out.

I wouldn't be in favour of a 'licence to vote' but all in favour of a public education program on the matter.

johnmcdnl

shouldn't ever happen - but i'll agree that civics or something similar should be taught in secondary schools properly...

besides - how many people actually vote that don't give a damn - and how many people just wouldn't bother going for the test out of laziness and would be denied the right to vote as a result..

your going to say their too lazy to go out to do one simple test - well seeing as so many people are disillusioned with politicans today how many of these people who think "their basically all the same" are going to be bothered to do a test for the right to vote "for the same ****ers in different colours"

and just out of interest - how many people do you think would actually apply to do this test if it was introduced - 10% of the population maybe??

also what's an easy but fair question - let's say I'm an unemployed architect - does it make the slightest bit of difference to me as to how many members are in the dail??
i mightn't know the answer to this question and too a few more of your questions in your test because instead of studying for this silly little test I spent the day looking through election manifestos by the candidates in my constituency to find out who was going to offer me the best opportunity for employment..
How the dail runs doesn't make a bif of difference to me - all i want is a representative up their that is going to try to help me get a new job..

wouldn't you agree that it's more important to try to make voters more aware to the policies of candiadates than spending millions and millions on a "test" to decide who the competent voters are - that idea just screams elitism at me..
"I know so much about the political system that I think that people should have to pass a test to be even allowed to vote to prove they know nearly as much as me"

it's more in his line to know what policies are being put forward by candidates rather than knowing how many seats in the dail their are...

at the end of the day i can only help elect 5 members and if i'm informed as to their policies it's far better than having to prove I know how the dail operates..

CokaColumbo

loldog wrote: »

Nope, I'm against this - too much risk of abuse. I would be in favour of compulsory voting though, like in Australia.

So you would prefer if a very large section of the voting population were to make a decision on a certain candidate, not because they knew anything about his/her policies but rather because they were simply coerced into casting a ballot in the first place. Is that not an abuse of the electoral system full stop? Why not just give the vote to 10 year olds?

Sir Oxman

johnmcdnl wrote: »

shouldn't ever happen - but i'll agree that civics or something similar should be taught in secondary schools properly...

besides - how many people actually vote that don't give a damn - and how many people just wouldn't bother going for the test out of laziness and would be denied the right to vote as a result..

your going to say their too lazy to go out to do one simple test - well seeing as so many people are disillusioned with politicans today how many of these people who think "their basically all the same" are going to be bothered to do a test for the right to vote "for the same ****ers in different colours"

and just out of interest - how many people do you think would actually apply to do this test if it was introduced - 10% of the population maybe??

also what's an easy but fair question - let's say I'm an unemployed architect - does it make the slightest bit of difference to me as to how many members are in the dail??
i mightn't know the answer to this question and too a few more of your questions in your test because instead of studying for this silly little test I spent the day looking through election manifestos by the candidates in my constituency to find out who was going to offer me the best opportunity for employment..
How the dail runs doesn't make a bif of difference to me - all i want is a representative up their that is going to try to help me get a new job..

wouldn't you agree that it's more important to try to make voters more aware to the policies of candiadates than spending millions and millions on a "test" to decide who the competent voters are - that idea just screams elitism at me..
"I know so much about the political system that I think that people should have to pass a test to be even allowed to vote to prove they know nearly as much as me"

it's more in his line to know what policies are being put forward by candidates rather than knowing how many seats in the dail their are...

at the end of the day i can only help elect 5 members and if i'm informed as to their policies it's far better than having to prove I know how the dail operates..

To be honest, I think that is very important information that everyone should have because if you do know how it works at the moment, you would clamour for immediate reform of it.
IMO, it's one of the biggest reasons we're up the swanny.

johnmcdnl

gambiaman wrote: »

To be honest, I think that is very important information that everyone should have because if you do know how it works at the moment, you would clamour for immediate reform of it.
IMO, it's one of the biggest reasons we're up the swanny.

so this test that's being proposed would help voters realise that the political system in ireland is scarred :rolleyes:

the day that a cross govenmental group will create a test that will inform the voters so much that we'll suddenly start clambering for reform is the day hell will freeze over

sur last time I checked even those that know absolutely feck all about the system would tell you that the ministers are overpaid and don't deserve half of what they get.. and don't do half enough work either..
now this simple test would never inform you as to what you should do to fix the system - and seeing as 99.9% of the population would probably agree that their should be some form of reform without even knowing a whole lot about the system - it mutes your point that we need a test to teach people that reform is needed...



what sort of questions should be put in - I'm actually sitting here trying to think of questions that are simple enough but still require some basic knowledge to answer..
remember - most of the people who come to this forum have a strong interest in politics to begin with - we're talking about people who take an interest in politics when election season comes round and who vote for the person who promises the most for them personally.. the average joe soap who doesn't have a degree in economics or political science or maybe even any form of degree...

see the problem with your test - it'll be piss easy for those with an interest while those with little to no interest will just not bother and their voices won't be heard..
it's hard enough to get certain groups of people and certain demographics out to vote without alienating them altogether by making tests compulsory to be allowed to vote...

Oasis_Dublin

CokaColumbo wrote: »

So you would prefer if a very large section of the voting population were to make a decision on a certain candidate, not because they knew anything about his/her policies but rather because they were simply coerced into casting a ballot in the first place. Is that not an abuse of the electoral system full stop? Why not just give the vote to 10 year olds?

Compulsory voting includes being allowed to spoil one's vote. It would give us a far better idea of just how many people aren't bothered with any of the politicians out there at the moment.

Sir Oxman

johnmcdnl wrote: »

so this test that's being proposed would help voters realise that the political system in ireland is scarred :rolleyes:

the day that a cross govenmental group will create a test that will inform the voters so much that we'll suddenly start clambering for reform is the day hell will freeze over

sur last time I checked even those that know absolutely feck all about the system would tell you that the ministers are overpaid and don't deserve half of what they get.. and don't do half enough work either..
now this simple test would never inform you as to what you should do to fix the system - and seeing as 99.9% of the population would probably agree that their should be some form of reform without even knowing a whole lot about the system - it mutes your point that we need a test to teach people that reform is needed...



what sort of questions should be put in - I'm actually sitting here trying to think of questions that are simple enough but still require some basic knowledge to answer..
remember - most of the people who come to this forum have a strong interest in politics to begin with - we're talking about people who take an interest in politics when election season comes round and who vote for the person who promises the most for them personally.. the average joe soap who doesn't have a degree in economics or political science or maybe even any form of degree...

see the problem with your test - it'll be piss easy for those with an interest while those with little to no interest will just not bother and their voices won't be heard..
it's hard enough to get certain groups of people and certain demographics out to vote without alienating them altogether by making tests compulsory to be allowed to vote...

Eh?
I'm not looking for a test at all. I'm against a test or 'licence' or whatever.
I'm for a bit of education.
In how the system operates now, in how it stymies debate in our parliament, how there is no accountability whatsoever, how the whip system works, how speaking time is allotted, how committees work and what their powers are, how and who can initiaite legislation that has a snowballs chance in hell of being looked at and debated nevermind passed, how the opposition's balls are removed by the system the second the new Dail is formed, how the govt control appointments to semi-states and agencies.

These are important things and for the first time that I can remember, people are actually asking the politicians on the doorsteps about what they are going to do to reform the system from top to bottom.
The pressure is on and it has to be kept up.
The public are realising it was the rotten system that was a major cause of how we got here, how we have half a million out of work, a stagnant economy and rotten private debt around our necks to name but a few of the country's ills.
It's all related to our political system.

If major reform of that is not worth pursuing and educating and debating about, I don't know what is.

Shea O'Meara

Papa Smut wrote: »

This probably won't ever be a runner, but what are people's thoughts about licensing votes? Before everyone goes mad saying it's undemocratic, check out the proposal:

It's a 15-20 min test, where you are asked really basic questions about politics in Ireland. Such as,
How many TD's sit in the Dail?
How long is a full term in office?
etc.

If you have a pass rate of 80% you get the right to vote, if you don't pass, you don't get to vote, but you can retake the test at any time.

As I say, it's really easy questions. What it will do is eliminate the voters that see an election as a popularity contest and a side positive, would increase voters education in regard to Irish politics.

I was discussing this with a mate last night and it was very strange to hear someone else put this idea forward. I do honestly believe in a licence to vote, but it's such a taboo to bring up, that myself and my friend were very reticent to bring it up to each other!

FWIW I would describe myself as a right wing leftie. I am at heart a leftie, but I see a lot of good things that can be carried over from the right.

If you fail the test are you tax exempt?

Aside from being undemocratic, It wouldn't improve anything.
People voting for A or B because they don't know any better is small fry compared to '...because my Da did and his father before him' or 'Dem blueshirts' or possibly worst, '...**** the country, I'll make a few bob off of this crowd'.

Nehaxak

It's bad enough trying to get people to vote as it is, throwing an exam of sorts in there would only make things worse.

I'm also for compulsory voting but with strict/harsh penalties imposed on those that don't vote and have no legitimate excuse for not doing so.
Something like a 40% extra tax rate imposed and anyone unemployed has 50% of their dole deducted. Anyone that appeals the penalties and again shows no legitimate reason as to why they never voted - has their citizenship revoked and they're expelled from the country.

Don't see why we should allow freeloaders on our democracy to continue to live here with no penalties imposed for refusing or being too lazy to cast a vote.
I see little difference between someone choosing not to vote and those that are ripping off the social welfare or ripping off the tax system.

Why should you be allowed to continue to live in and off this country when you've chosen not to even bother to participate in the governance of same by casting your vote ?

lynski

Nehaxak wrote: »

It's bad enough trying to get people to vote as it is, throwing an exam of sorts in there would only make things worse.

I'm also for compulsory voting but with strict/harsh penalties imposed on those that don't vote and have no legitimate excuse for not doing so.
Something like a 40% extra tax rate imposed and anyone unemployed has 50% of their dole deducted. Anyone that appeals the penalties and again shows no legitimate reason as to why they never voted - has their citizenship revoked and they're expelled from the country.

Don't see why we should allow freeloaders on our democracy to continue to live here with no penalties imposed for refusing or being too lazy to cast a vote.
I see little difference between someone choosing not to vote and those that are ripping off the social welfare or ripping off the tax system.

Why should you be allowed to continue to live in and off this country when you've chosen not to even bother to participate in the governance of same by casting your vote ?

Voting needs to be compulsory, participation in our republic should not be left to those who can be bothered, that is part of the reason we have had FFers in power for so long, because they know how to get the vote out.
I think the penalties should be harsh, but not like that. A Fine for those in employment and a deduction once-off from dole for those not.
Voting is a right AND a responsibility of every citizen and should be taken seriously. If you don't fancy, don't know enough or simply cannot be bothered about the candidates then you can spoil, but you must show up on the day.
I dont think it matters one way or another the reasons people vote for someone, is voting for someone you fancy any better then voting for the one who got your cousins brother-in-law his medical card? an argument could be made that the latter is worse.
In an ideal world we would all be informed and engaged, but TBH, I am so disenfranchised by all the current politicians I wish that i could leave the 1st preference section blank as none of them float my boat, they are all 2nd/3rd/4th prefs in my view.

pigeonbutler

Nehaxak wrote: »

It's bad enough trying to get people to vote as it is, throwing an exam of sorts in there would only make things worse.

I'm also for compulsory voting but with strict/harsh penalties imposed on those that don't vote and have no legitimate excuse for not doing so.
Something like a 40% extra tax rate imposed and anyone unemployed has 50% of their dole deducted. Anyone that appeals the penalties and again shows no legitimate reason as to why they never voted - has their citizenship revoked and they're expelled from the country.

Don't see why we should allow freeloaders on our democracy to continue to live here with no penalties imposed for refusing or being too lazy to cast a vote.
I see little difference between someone choosing not to vote and those that are ripping off the social welfare or ripping off the tax system.

Why should you be allowed to continue to live in and off this country when you've chosen not to even bother to participate in the governance of same by casting your vote ?

So a 95% rate of tax for well-off self employed people then? (55+40) And then having people afraid to appeal because if they lose they'll be deported and left stateless?

To those who talk about a test for voting, I'd be more interested in excluding those posting in this forum that show a complete disregard for the basic principles of democracy and human rights than people who don't know some trivia about how our government works. But I won't suggest that because democracy means allowing people the freedom to be idiots or to propose anti-democractic ideas that I fundamentally disagree with.

Someone suggested a question be how many TDs are there. I work in a team with about a dozen smart, educated people (minimum grad level + prof exams, many have masters level plus prof exams) whose job involves a lot of knowledge of legislation and regulations and almost all of whom are interested in politics and government but aren't party political. Only myself and one other person of those dozen people would know that there are 166 TD's, 60 Senators (being 43 from the panels, 11 from the Taoiseach, and 3 each from NUI and Dublin University). Just because I'm a political nerd doesn't mean my right to vote is more important than my colleagues!!

Solair

I would never agree with the idea of removing universal suffrage with a system like an elector's license. It is just too wide open to abuse and it was widely abused in the US where it was commonly used in the southern states to exclude African-American voters.

What we do need to do however, is repair the mess that is the electoral register.

I know so many people who have moved house and are still getting polling cards at their old address or, their family home, despite having done everything correctly to re-register in a new area. It seems the franchise offices are just not removing people from the register, even when specifically instructed to do so on the form you use to register at a new address.

I cannot understand why we can't simply have a single national database which uses PPS numbers to ensure that someone's only registered once. It's not rocket science, and it does not create any data protection issues.

I also find it rather ridiculous that people who are living in Dublin, Cork, Galway or whatever for several years go "home" to their hometown to vote there. I know several people who moved to Dublin and to Cork who are still going back to parts of rural Ireland to vote despite not having lived their for over a decade.

I fail to see what these people are doing voting in a constituency where they clearly do not live and then not bothering to participate in the political process in Cork or Dublin, which is where they actually live.

The whole thing needs to be cleaned-up and people need to start taking it a bit seriously or it will be open to all sorts of electoral fraud.

Incidentally, there are other countries with equally wishy-washy systems, particularly the UK.

RichieC

Bucklesman wrote: »

Jim Crow era Alabama

First thing I thought when I seen the thread!

Bucklesman

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Your post is pathetic. The right-wing? Jim crow era tests? Undemocratic? That's a seriously inept understanding of what the posters have been advocating for on this thread. The point of having a basic test would be to place the process of electing representatives into the hands of citizens with a fundamental understanding of the political landscape of Ireland. It is wrong, in my opinion, that the opposite should be the case; that the candidates with flash posters, airy promises and youth-inspiring calls for 'hope' etc. have a better chance of motivating people to vote for them because the voting base consists, to a degree, of people with what is an essentially retarded grasp of anything political in Ireland.

I don't think you've read enough of my post to call it pathetic. I stand by what I said. Even if people are disenfranchised by their own ignorance or apathy, they are still disenfranchised.

Look, I agree that it would be great to have a more informed electorate, but testing is not the way to achieve that. As I said earlier, it creates a barrier that makes registration inconvenient, messy and costly. It's also open to abuse.

Far better to stick with improving people's knowledge of the political system via the education system with classes like CSPE.

RandomName2

Papa Smut wrote: »

This probably won't ever be a runner, but what are people's thoughts about licensing votes? Before everyone goes mad saying it's undemocratic, check out the proposal:

It's a 15-20 min test, where you are asked really basic questions about politics in Ireland. Such as,
How many TD's sit in the Dail?
How long is a full term in office?
etc.

If you have a pass rate of 80% you get the right to vote, if you don't pass, you don't get to vote, but you can retake the test at any time.

As I say, it's really easy questions. What it will do is eliminate the voters that see an election as a popularity contest and a side positive, would increase voters education in regard to Irish politics.

I was discussing this with a mate last night and it was very strange to hear someone else put this idea forward. I do honestly believe in a licence to vote, but it's such a taboo to bring up, that myself and my friend were very reticent to bring it up to each other!

FWIW I would describe myself as a right wing leftie. I am at heart a leftie, but I see a lot of good things that can be carried over from the right.

Maybe have that hypothetical test as part of the mandatory hurdles necessary for foreigners to gain Irish citizenship (among other things).

As it stands, all Irish citizens are obliged to stay in school until 16(?). The Junior Cert could be said to be that test you speak of! Indeed, CSPE specifically deals with those particular items.

However, if you fail the J-cert you can still vote. Having said that - how many people fail the junior cert?

You are only able to vote after being in the education system for a minimum of 9 years. Is that not enough for the franchise?