[Angus]

Originally Posted by Shasown

So if they lowered the voting age to 16, and then insisted on an exam to pass, wouldnt those who failed be able to claim that they were being discriminated against on the grounds of their stupidity. Couldnt they also ask for the exam to be extended to all voters in order to be fair.

Lets face it I know some over 18's who would fail that sort of exam. Stupidity doesnt just disappear on your 18th birthday.

I totally agree. Everyone over 18 should have to take the exam in the same way you need a licence to drive, you should get a licence to vote. I would have no problem with that at all. After all if you don't have a clue as to the major issues, and the solutions being put forward by the opposing parties, then you really shouldn't be let near a ballot box to cast a vote which is going to affect the lives of everyone in this country. Any vote should be from an informed voter.

[Brekkie]

Originally Posted by Harry!

But the exams would prove that they are sensible and can make the right choices. If they are smart enough to pass a exam then they are smart enought to vote.

Just a idea though.

And if they fail they can become candidates for parliament!

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Brekkie

And if they fail they can become candidates for parliament!

Very good!

[setanta]

Originally Posted by angus58

I totally agree. Everyone over 18 should have to take the exam in the same way you need a licence to drive, you should get a licence to vote. I would have no problem with that at all. After all if you don't have a clue as to the major issues, and the solutions being put forward by the opposing parties, then you really shouldn't be let near a ballot box to cast a vote which is going to affect the lives of everyone in this country. Any vote should be from an informed voter.

Sorry, but that's not how a democratic society works. It's like saying all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by setanta

Sorry, but that's not how a democratic society works. It's like saying all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

Well the insane are not allowed to vote on the grounds that they do not know what they are voting for. Using that reasoning, I am saying there could be millions of people who vote who may have no clear idea what they are voting for, yet we ALL have to suffer the consequences of the choices they make. It is certainly the democratic right of anyone to be ignorant, but it is my human right not to suffer the consequences of that ignorance.

As for democracy, which kind are you referring to since there are several varieties? In the UK it is the majority rule, though some would argue that it is tyranny by majority, depending on which side of the ideological spectrum you're on. In this country people are villified for supporting the BNP, for example, yet that is their democratic right to do so, whether you or I like it.
Therefore the rule of the majority becomes the tyranny of the majority but hey ho, it's still democracy!

If people are going to make UNINFORMED choices that affect the outcome of something as important as choosing a government, then there should be safeguards in place. Otherwise your argument to allow everyone to vote should be extended to include all exempt groups on the grounds that not allowing them to do so infringes THEIR human rights.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by angus58

Well the insane are not allowed to vote on the grounds that they do not know what they are voting for. Using that reasoning, I am saying there could be millions of people who vote who may have no clear idea what they are voting for, yet we ALL have to suffer the consequences of the choices they make. It is certainly the democratic right of anyone to be ignorant, but it is my human right not to suffer the consequences of that ignorance.

As for democracy, which kind are you referring to since there are several varieties? In the UK it is the majority rule, though some would argue that it is tyranny by majority, depending on which side of the ideological spectrum you're on. In this country people are villified for supporting the BNP, for example, yet that is their democratic right to do so, whether you or I like it.
Therefore the rule of the majority becomes the tyranny of the majority but hey ho, it's still democracy!

If people are going to make UNINFORMED choices that affect the outcome of something as important as choosing a government, then there should be safeguards in place. Otherwise your argument to allow everyone to vote should be extended to include all exempt groups on the grounds that not allowing them to do so infringes THEIR human rights.

And where does this kind of reasoning end? The cornerstones of any democracy are equal rights and freedoms for all, which you would be suppressing or basically opposing by enforcing this kind of law. I would rather have a society that promotes free speech and a say for all than have one where the most important decisions on the running of the state are dictated by a minority of citizens. Like I said before, it doesn't work that way.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by setanta

And where does this kind of reasoning end? The cornerstones of any democracy are equal rights and freedoms for all, which you would be suppressing or basically opposing by enforcing this kind of law. I would rather have a society that promotes free speech and a say for all than have one where the most important decisions on the running of the state are dictated by a minority of citizens. Like I said before, it doesn't work that way.

Where have I said that any minority would surpress or oppose the votes of others by the enforcement of law? For a start how would that come about? You seem to have missed my point somewhere. I am not saying that anyone should be excluded from voting but surely they should have some clue as to WHAT they are voting for, for their own sakes as much as anyone else's. You only need to look around England now and realise that our so called democracy is NOT working since there are not equal rights and freedoms for all - some people are more equal than others it seems. The democracy we have in this country is the consensus of the majority over the minority - that is how we run our elections after all. The rule of majority consensus is the cornerstone of democracy in this country, and in order to pass any law would require a majority vote, so therefore would be deemed democratic.

And this is why the Human Rights legislation is fundamentally flawed since one person's human rights often infringes on another person's human rights - so whose rights should take precedence? Again the decision would have to come down to MAJORITY consensus.