To think that democracy isn't necessarily the best form of government?

[Thebestwaytoscareatory]

For example, I'm interested in politics and governance and have spent time learning about the topic, yet my vote counts exactly as much as someone who thinks all brown people are rapists or that all women are nothing more than broodmares.

This doesn't sit right with me. Surely we should acknowledge that some opinions are not as valid as others and take steps to ensure that the lowest common denominator isn't represented equally at elections?

Politics needs to be taught in school from year 1.

Indeed. A combination of the Daily Mail et al telling people what to think and the FPTP system we will never have a decent government.

Nobody has to read the Mail. They can read the Guardian or Independent or there’s masses online.

Who are working class people?
Most plumbers, roofers round here run their own business and are doing v well.
No factories. Retail staff? Well there’s mostly volunteers in charity shops .
Oh a handful of street sweepers…

Spoiling the vote is a thing here, since we don't get the "none of the above" option - I have written things like that many a time!

Of course we aren't actually compelled to vote. Once we're in the voting booth, or have filled in a postal vote, nobody knows what we write on the ballot paper. The requirement is to get our names marked as having voted.

Surely everyone living in this country and is an adult, understands where the newspapers are coming from? Where they lean. It’s obvious. In a free press they can have opinions. It’s allowed. Just buy another paper!

Most news is garnered from on line by younger people. There’s far more danger there as it’s not regulated.

The working class here are relatively few. Many identify as working class because their parents were. Education has elevated them out of it. Anyone working in a factory is probably working class by definition but not necessarily. It’s more a description people assign to themselves. Neither do they all think the same. A bigger group
is probably the non working adult.

Oh yes thats what I meant, I just didnt explain myself well. I think that system would work. We have too many people who proudly proclaim they have never voted, as if that is them 'sticking it to the Man' when it is the opposite. If people had to register that they had gone to the voting booth ( or filled out a postal vote etc) then that would reduce some of the 'cant be bothered' to actually actively have to do something. That may compel some of them to look into what they are voting for. I was a count clerk for the last general election. We had a few people who went to the polling booth and drew a massive penis on the ballot paper. All candidates had to look at it and agree that it wasn't a vote for a particular party. That at least was a proper protest vote and had to be registered as a spoilt ballot paper.

I agree. I would consider myself as politically centre Left.. But too many people on the Left use the excuse of the Mainstream media as the reason why people ( particularly the 'Working Class' don't vote for Hard Left policies. But people aren't stupid just because they don't agree with you. They are just voting in their own self interest, or look at policies and just...don't like them!
We have dreadful press in this country that is biased, of poor quality and poorly regulated, but it is so obviously biased that most people know that. They choose the media that best represents their views. The print media is also dying. Most people as you say consume their news from a variety of sources online. There is nothing stopping people from finding news sources online, or from political parties publicising their actual policies online if people are interested. The problem is that many are not, or they become interested then gravitate to propoganda sites on both sides, and think some random conspiracy theory is 'the truth that is being kept from them by the establishment/MSM/NewWorldOrder. Also, what is the alternative? State run media? Newspapers are a privately run business because we have freedom of the press. How do we ensure that we have a 'balanced' media without banning publications and views? And who decides what is a balance of views? Do we say if only The Guardian and the Indy are Leftist, we can only have The Telegraph and The Mail? Or do we count the Morning Star and the Socialist Worker, so then we can add a few more?

Someone like Sir Francis Galton would have been on the panel of experts /super voters in his day. He was brilliant in many areas and also an advocate for Eugenics. His views of other races and the poor are breathtakingly awful.

Being brilliant and authoritative doesn’t mean you don’t have very bad ideas.

Some of the press is pretty good. They do have a role in investigative journalism. The Telegraph uncovered the expenses scandal. The Times, I and Guardian are balanced enough. Red tops - no! But it’s a free country and papers are not censored. We are not obliged to buy them. Our tv and newspapers are good. The web is the huge issue - it’s not regulate at all. Newspapers and other media outlets are.

Surely everyone living in this country and is an adult, understands where the newspapers are coming from?

I’d say so

Actually I think you over estimate our ability to filter information as human beings.
You don't even have to read the articles or buy the papers, the headlines scream out at you from every supermarket you go into. If every day you see messages that immigrants are bad (for example (a particular favourite of certain papers)) this stuff goes in and colours our thinking and voting. I think it's naive to think these headlines of hate everywhere don't influence us or that we are somehow immune to the messages we are all surrounded by .

I had a terrible dream last night (if fact two terrible dreams). One was that we got rid of the human rights act and exited from ECHR (with huge public support) so that we could deport boat people. Then the government raised the voting age to 25, again with popular support. Then because of falling population, the government introduced a bill that women of 25 must have at least one child to be able to vote.

The other dream was even worse. I was breast feeding my teenage children because they were sick.

I can’t say I notice any screaming headlines. Just placing where the print news is in the supermarket I use, and how much I take notice. Which is not at all

There's now a frantic inquiry at CCHQ to find out who leaked their plans.

This is why education is important.

Exactly. It's not like the olden days. The papers and magazines are in one place in a shop or supermarket. If people aren't buying them they aren't going to that shelf. I can't remember the last time I went over to the newspaper or magazine section of a shop.

As long as it's the "right kind" of education ...

Rather appropriately in Sainsburys, it's on the way to the toilets.

In Tesco it's next to the special offers.

The problem is, that was the point of citizenship. Its taught from primary school and has been for many years. Yet the rate of voting for under 40' and 18-25 year olds in particular is stubbornly low. In a shrinking demographic that just means they are just ignored. But it doesn't make them more likely to vote. I don't know what the answer is.

When you are in the early stages of life, each step doesn't seem to take you anywhere. It's only as you slowly ascend then mountain you realise each step is actually advancing you that little bit more.

Young folk are still at the bottom third of the mountain. Seniors (as we will learn to call them, thanks to US copywriting) can actually smell the summit.

I can re-metaphorize that if needs be. Just give me a coffee.

I get what you mean. Older people have more to win / lose than those just starting out in life, the consequences of their vote are more of an incentive perhaps.

YABU not on principle, but because such a thing is an impossibility.

There isn’t any way that a purity test of sorts could be done to get a right to vote that human society would not corrupt.

The Athenians tried it. Have you ever studied what their infant democracy was really like? They basically thought that the opinions of cowards were rubbish, so you had to have done military service to vote. That the opinions of women were too emotional so women couldn’t vote. Immigrants were suspect because what kind of decent person leaves their home city? Slaves were too stupid to vote. And any man who married a slave or a nonAthenian was a pervert and so shouldn’t vote either….

It just results in injustice.

I think this is it, there isn't a hegemony of beliefs, ideals & identity any more and while that is a good thing in many ways, it could also be democracy’s undoing.

The Athenians tried it.

Indeed. And ancient Athens is still regarded as a high water mark of civilisation through the ages. Which is actually a good endorsement for

the opinions of cowards were rubbish, so you had to have done military service to vote. That the opinions of women were too emotional so women couldn’t vote. Immigrants were suspect because what kind of decent person leaves their home city? Slaves were too stupid to vote. And any man who married a slave or a non Athenian was a pervert and so shouldn’t vote either….

And what about Sparta ?