to think there should be some sort of aptitude test to qualify for the vote?

[MardyBra]

Before getting your polling card, you'd need to do a comprehension test where you look at all the parties' policies and demonstrate that you understand what you are voting for. Then people wouldn't vote on the basis that a certain party leader is a good bloke and buys his round, for example.

You could resit the test if you fail, of course.

Or maybe there should be some other criteria, like random sweeps of peoples' houses. Anyone found harbouring a copy of the Daily Mail would be disqualified.

This would have come in handy a few times over the years.

If you don't like living in a democracy you could always move

Erm, Mardy, you do realise what you're saying don't you?

Guitargirl I absolutely refuse to put "lighthearted" in a thread title.

YABU. It's a democracy. Vote for who you want, for the reasons you want. Your idea would cost £££££s. You can't educate stupity out of people.

OK, Juniper, maybe there could be a sliding scale. Everyone gets a vote, but some are more equal than others have a greater weighting.

Could we extend that to everything else in life?

There used to be, it was restricted to male property owners.
I'd like to see one before being able to become a parent.

Absolutely. Yanbu

now that is fascist

Mine and yours would be worth more of course.

My vote is only worth 0.066 of a whole vote anyway according to the voter power index

I am as unhappy with the outcome of the elections this week as the next UKIP-basher, it was UKIP which actually got me to the polls in the first place as if I had not felt as strongly as I did about registering my distaste for that particular party I may not have bothered voting at all.

BUT I think it's far too easy to dismiss UKIP and other similarly-minded voters for reacting to the anti-immigration rhetoric and failing to 'understand' the bigger picture. Sneering at people for not educating themselves on policies gets us nowhere. There must have been some very highly-educated UKIP voters who knew EXACTLY what they were voting for. That's what scares me the most .

Guitargirl That's a very eloquent post.

Juniper My vote is worth 1.04 x a normal vote according to that index. [smug]

I had this rant last night, along with another about compulsory voting. Two-thirds of the electorate failing to vote is just appalling, as is people supporting candidates based on what the Daily Heil has told them, or whether they think the party leader is a charismatic character.

Of course it wouldn't work. Of course it would undermine the very principal of democracy. But bloody hell is it frustrating to try and get people to actually research what the different parties stand for and to vote based on that.

No need for an aptitude test. We just need to make voting compulsory. We should have a box 'none of the above' for the cba to fill in. No use moaning about what the government/council do or don't do if you can't be arsed to vote.

Is an aptitude test a way of stopping older people voting? Most babyboomers didn't go to university!

Mine is worth 1.22x a normal one! Lucky I'd pass your test, Mardy.

The problem with democracy is that the opinion of the perfectly ignorant & reactionary counts as much as that of the perfectly informed & rational.

Maybe we should have a benign dictatorship. Who could we put in charge?

Benign dictatorships can work well. Check out Monaco. Nobody misses the vote, there.

Apparetly my vote is worth 0.771 of a vote.

But voters in this constituency have 3.05x more voting power than the UK average.

So, umm, what does that actually mean?

"Check out Monaco. Nobody misses the vote, there."

Being stinking rich (or at least working for someone who is) probably helps.

Ineed It's saying that average voter gets a quarter of a vote. And a few voters in key marginals get a lot more power.