Intelligent voting

Ouchette

Give everyone a quick test on sorting bullshit from facts, circular arguments from logic, good reasons for voting for someone (ones based on understanding) from ‘my family always voted from them/he has nice hair’ etc.

If you fail, no vote for you.

leggit

Bring in licences for people to have the right to vote.

I'm voting no cos I no like the Euro

hooradiation

Ouchette wrote: »

Give everyone a quick test on sorting bullshit from facts, circular arguments from logic, good reasons for voting for someone (ones based on understanding) from ‘my family always voted from them/he has nice hair’ etc.

If you fail, no vote for you.

While I'm adamant that people need to stop being such terrible shits and actually take their responsibilities of being a voter seriously, I think voting tests are a bad idea.
It's too easy to effectively disenfranchise people under the flimsiest of pretexts.

I'd rather people be shamed into taking their responsibilities seriously. I look forward to a day when people espousing "I don't know, so I'll vote no" (or yes for that matter) or "shure, they're all as bad as each other!" are treated with the same contempt as people who think that god created them in a single day, the earth is flat or vaccines give you autism.

Laois_Man

Instead of people having to explain their vote, can't we just have people of any age sit some sort of moderately easy exam on politics so they can prove they know wtf they're voting about. Coz many don't!

Edit: It seems it's already been suggested.

Dravokivich

hooradiation wrote: »

That's pretty much the definition of it, tbh.

The right to vote comes with the responsibility to be an informed voter, if they can't be fucked upholding their end of the bargain, then fuck them.

This is the goddamn information age, claiming that it's not the fault of the people themselves because they don't have the inclination to do some basic reading is a cop out.

Of course, the "if you don't know vote no" mantra is the cornerstone of every no campaign, because it's much easier to tell people their ignorance is ok and capitalise on that then trying to inform them why they should vote no.

blackwhite wrote: »

I disagree completely. Voting is a responsibility, not just a right.
Voters have a responsibility to ensure that they themselves understand what they are voting on. It shouldn't be someone else's job to spoon-feed you, if you are old enough to vote then you are old enough to do a bit of bloody research.

If you understand the issues and feel that a yes or a no vote is what's best for the country then vote in the way you see best.
If you don't understand the issue, then stay at home.
Voting on something you don't understand is like picking up a gun and pulling the trigger without checking to see if it is loaded. You may or may not cause damage, you're just too lazy to check first

Eh, my point wasn't with regards to people who didn't take the time to understand. It was with regards to people who tried and couldn't understand it.

Thanks for eh, re-inforcing it.

Agricola

Laois_Man wrote: »

Instead of people having to explain their vote, can't we just have people of any age sit some sort of moderately easy exam on politics so they can prove they know wtf they're voting about. Coz many don't!

Edit: It seems it's already been suggested.

Yes, like that exam to obtain Uk or US citizenship, but geared for Irish politics. Name some government ministers, what was the outcome of previous referenda on 'x', what is the current national debt, on a scale of 1 to 10 how many additional numbers after 10 would you need to describe how screwed up this country is at the moment, etc etc

That would sort out the informed from the uninformed!

hooradiation

Dravokivich wrote: »

Eh, my point wasn't with regards to people who didn't take the time to understand. It was with regards to people who tried and couldn't understand it.

Thanks for eh, re-inforcing it.

They should either try harder or stay at home.

promethius42

Laois_Man wrote: »

Instead of people having to explain their vote, can't we just have people of any age sit some sort of moderately easy exam on politics so they can prove they know wtf they're voting about. Coz many don't!

Edit: It seems it's already been suggested.

If most people wouldn't be capable of passing such a test and thus being unable to participate in a vote, then wouldn't this lead to politics becoming even more unrepresentative and possibly unfair than it already is?

Dravokivich

hooradiation wrote: »

They should either try harder or stay at home.

Such an exclusive mindset. Desn't really sit well with the idea of what a referendum is meant to represent.

There's plenty who stay at home because they can't be arsed. But it does no good telling someone to do so who can't say "yes," because they don't understand what that means.

hooradiation

Dravokivich wrote: »

Such an exclusive mindset. Desn't really sit well with the idea of what a referendum is meant to represent.

I fail to see how.
The responsibility to be an informed voter doesn't get suspended just because it's a referendum. And doubly so when it's the kind we're prone to having, on complex treaties.

Dravokivich wrote: »

There's plenty who stay at home because they can't be arsed. But it does no good telling someone to do so who can't say "yes," because they don't understand what that means.

Effort does not equal worth.
They tried and they failed, and more than that, they know that they failed.
So they can either try harder or just sit this one out.

Feisar

I'm not voting because I haven't studied the topic enough to make an informed decision. Is that fair enough?

kneemos

promethius42 wrote: »

If most people wouldn't be capable of passing such a test and thus being unable to participate in a vote, then wouldn't this lead to politics becoming even more unrepresentative and possibly unfair than it already is?

People who do'nt know why thier voting are'nt representing themselves.

Dravokivich

hooradiation wrote: »

I fail to see how.
The responsibility to be an informed voter doesn't get suspended just because it's a referendum. And doubly so when it's the kind we're prone to having, on complex treaties.

You are affectively telling someone who would want to excerise their right to vote, that they should not if they don't understand it. With that alone you are determining who should and shouldn't vote. A referendum as you are aware results in a change to the constitution. A result I feel should try to drive as many people to vote on their understanding of it as possible. And if they don't understand it, should be able to challenge the validity of it.

hooradiation wrote: »

Effort does not equal worth.
They tried and they failed, and more than that, they know that they failed.
So they can either try harder or just sit this one out.

All that should be equal is each persons vote. Some you seem to value less than others.

westendgirlie

Has everyone received Fiscal Treaty literature through their doors?

The only info I have so far (that I didn't research myself on the internet) was from Sinn Fein when they knocked on the door.

K-9

westendgirlie wrote: »

Has everyone received Fiscal Treaty literature through their doors?

The only info I have so far (that I didn't research myself on the internet) was from Sinn Fein when they knocked on the door.

You should have got a leaflet from the Referendum Commission, a "laymans" guide from the Government and one with a picture of a hot Icelandic girl and good cartoons from Nigel Farage!

westendgirlie

Nope K9, never received any of that. Must ask the neighbours later

christmas2012

I honestly dont know still dont know what way i will vote will have to flip a coin

DoesNotCompute

kneemos wrote: »

Should people be made to give a coherent and valid reason for voting yes or no in the coming election.Some people seem to have the most obscure reasons for voting.

Irish people are incapable of intelligent voting, as evidenced by decades of voting in the Fianna Epic Fail party.

ScumLord

How can anyone really intelligently vote when they receive no training?

Everyone in this country should be thought good politics in school from a young age, we should have some sort of citizenship course. It couldn't be used to deny a vote but at least people might have some idea of what's going on and may be better equipped to spot and ignore bull****.

Nothingbetter2d

K-9 wrote: »

You should have got a leaflet from the Referendum Commission, a "laymans" guide from the Government and one with a picture of a hot Icelandic girl and good cartoons from Nigel Farage!

i never got it

DoesNotCompute

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

They are desperate for a Yes vote because without a second bailout they will have to reduce their disgusting salaries and pensions

This is one of the biggest falacies that the No side are peddling.

Leaving aside the bank debt, there is a €15 billion gap between what we take in, and what we spend. 40% of that is spent of social welfare. 35% is spent on Health. The remaining 25% is general stuff like wages and pensions for politicians, civil servants, etc, running costs of government buildings, and so on.

So even if all politicians took a 95% cut to all pensions and wages in the morning, that would still amount to less than 25% of the day-to-day running costs of the State.

What's telling about the above stats is that if Ireland vote to reject the Treaty, the govt will start cutting the areas of biggest spend, i.e. Social Welafe and Health. Is that really what you want?

K-9

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

i never got it

That is odd, postman delivered mine as far as I know.

hooradiation

Dravokivich wrote: »

You are affectively telling someone who would want to excerise their right to vote, that they should not if they don't understand it.

The right to vote comes with the responsibility to understand what you're doing.
This is not unreasonable.

And yes, I will tell people that they shouldn't vote if they don't have a damn clue what they're doing. A stance I'd take on someone attempting to do anything they have no clue about.

This, however, only represents what is at best an earnest suggestion. I can't stop people from being stupid.

Dravokivich wrote: »

With that alone you are determining who should and shouldn't vote.

I wasn't aware that I was that powerful....
Dravokivich, by the powers vested in me by your hyperbole, you may never vote again.

Dravokivich wrote: »

A referendum as you are aware results in a change to the constitution. A result I feel should try to drive as many people to vote on their understanding of it as possible. And if they don't understand it, should be able to challenge the validity of it.

How can they meaningfully challenge the validity of something they don't understand. Surely one would need to understand the issue at hand first?

Dravokivich wrote: »

All that should be equal is each persons vote. Some you seem to value less than others.

I wasn't aware we were weighting peoples votes based on my contempt of their laziness.

All votes count for the same, nobody is being stopped from voting, all that is being asked is they live up to their side of the bargain and be informed voters.
If they are incapable of that then they ought to try and rectify their failings or have the decency to abstain.
But if they simply feel they must vote regardless, then off they go.

The dumb bastards.

biko

kneemos wrote: »

Should people be made to give a coherent and valid reason for voting yes or no in the coming election.Some people seem to have the most obscure reasons for voting.

It's a good idea on paper but then someone would have to sit and arbitrate what the "good" reason is/was and decide if it counts or not - so no.
Is "I hate the government" valid? Is "I think it will be more ruin on Ireland" valid? Who decides?

blackwhite

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

This is one of the biggest falacies that the No side are peddling.

Leaving aside the bank debt, there is a €15 billion gap between what we take in, and what we spend. 40% of that is spent of social welfare. 35% is spent on Health. The remaining 25% is general stuff like wages and pensions for politicians, civil servants, etc, running costs of government buildings, and so on.

So even if all politicians took a 95% cut to all pensions and wages in the morning, that would still amount to less than 25% of the day-to-day running costs of the State.

What's telling about the above stats is that if Ireland vote to reject the Treaty, the govt will start cutting the areas of biggest spend, i.e. Social Welafe and Health. Is that really what you want?

Politicians' salaries, benefits and expenses are a red herring thrown into most debates by the likes of SIPTU and IMPACT, because it's a good topic for getting people angry and keeping them distracted from the important issues.

We have 166 TD's and 60 Senators. At an estimated total annual cost of €250k for each one of them, that gives €56.5m per year cost. You could even double that to €110m to count in the cost of pensions to retired TDs/ministers, and you still wouldn't be approaching 1% of our deficit, never mind 1% of our annual expenditures.

Politicians are, for the most part, a**holes, and as a result it's easy to get resentful of every penny thrown towards them. However, cutting their pay, pensions, expenses or any other benefit won't make much difference towards getting this country out if the mess it's in.
But keeping Joe Public angry about politician's pay means that he won't be getting worked up about our bloated social welfare system or the chronic inefficiencies which plague many parts of the public sector and take much needed funds away from front-line services.

Ouchette

Dravokivich wrote: »

All that should be equal is each persons vote. Some you seem to value less than others.

I do value the opinion of someone who's done their research and understands the issues over someone who's completely uninformed. It seems reasonable.

A pity weighted voting according to how much someone's opinion is worth listening to would be completely unworkable

promethius42

kneemos wrote: »

People who do'nt know why thier voting are'nt representing themselves.

Perhaps so, but that wasn't the main point I was making, the point was that wouldn't it be too dangerous to allow those that make the decisions slip further into obscurity and away from the eyes of the public?

Whilst voting when not really knowing about politics is a sad action it does give these people some sort of connection with politics, even at a fringe level and may lead to them keeping up to date with what is actually going on, where as if they lost this connection through loosing their vote, wouldn't politicians then not be under enough scrutiny?

hooradiation

biko wrote: »

It's a good idea on paper but then someone would have to sit and arbitrate what the "good" reason is/was and decide if it counts or not - so no.
Is "I hate the government" valid? Is "I think it will be more ruin on Ireland" valid? Who decides?

Which is the big flaw of any voting test.

Having people hold themselves to a reasonable (albeit personal) standard of comprehension on issues would work better - though it's not without it's flaws. Namely the Dunning–Kruger effect. But it would hopefully see the level of discourse and understanding rise and still allow people their freedom to vote in whatever way they want for whatever asinine reason they pick.


Sadly a long term change in societal behaviour like that is kinda hard to achieve.
But a girl can dream.......

ScumLord

blackwhite wrote: »

Politicians' salaries, benefits and expenses are a red herring thrown into most debates by the likes of SIPTU and IMPACT, because it's a good topic for getting people angry and keeping them distracted from the important issues.

We have 166 TD's and 60 Senators. At an estimated total annual cost of €250k for each one of them, that gives €56.5m per year cost. You could even double that to €110m to count in the cost of pensions to retired TDs/ministers, and you still wouldn't be approaching 1% of our deficit, never mind 1% of our annual expenditures.

The main problem I see with overpaying politicians is that it elevates them into a different class where they no longer have to deal with or worry about the plight of the common citizen. They don't have to second guess spending money, they can avoid all the cues, they can buy the best of everything along with the extended warranty and so on. They just don't live in the same world as other people so therefore just can't understand what everyone else is going through.

kneemos

promethius42 wrote: »

Perhaps so, but that wasn't the main point I was making, the point was that wouldn't it be too dangerous to allow those that make the decisions slip further into obscurity and away from the eyes of the public?

Whilst voting when not really knowing about politics is a sad action it does give these people some sort of connection with politics, even at a fringe level and may lead to them keeping up to date with what is actually going on, where as if they lost this connection through loosing their vote, wouldn't politicians then not be under enough scrutiny?

Good point. Tenuous but fair enough.