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?

Also, will candidates have to informed about the policies of Count Binface and Monster Raving Loony Party?

If you wish the idiots to consent to your leadership you need their vote. No vote, no consent.

What you are proposing is dangerous- look at the mess in the current world of academia - ideology has bled in to it and it has disappeared up its own arse and is churning out mindless twonks who have their heads up their arses with their eyes fixed entirely on their navals - you don't want these people deciding for us.

Correct answers as in "who is the leader of X party" not "is it best to reduce taxes or raise them". Just factual to indicate that a person has the most basic understanding of the political landscape. As for different elections..no, I think realistically, a pass mark for each GE should qualify you to vote for any other election in the meantime. It wouldn't be perfect, nothing is, but witnessing some of the idiotic comments made around Brexit by people with a vote (including not being able to pronounce the word "referendum" let alone understand it) made me despair.

nothing is, but witnessing some of the idiotic comments made around Brexit by people.

If remain had won would you still want an exam to be passed before being allowed to vote?
What happens when candidates fail the test? Will they have to wait until the next election to have another go?

A series of questions on policies at an “election” is a referendum. Parties are a better solution. We need a system that represents people. Not a list of questions. Simply won’t work. We have MPs who will listen to anyone in their surgeries. They write letters and advocate for all citizens irrespective of how they vote.

Democracy is not all people being represented. It’s all people being asked for an opinion. What country truly has all views represented? Most have parties but many can form coalitions. At the moment we have an issue with extremes that would find it difficult to align . They might listen to the electorate but the outliers are the danger. As they are in other countries.

Maybe I'm not explaining this well. I am NOT suggesting that people get questions "right" that involve anything other than objective facts. Not opinions or views. Eg Who is the leader of the Labour Party? Is the Chancellor in charge of a) money b) war c) hospitals?
I teach RS. I spend every day explaining to teens the difference between fact and opinions and about how their exam answers get marked; not on the basis of if the do or don't believe in God, or abortion, or pacifism but on how much they KNOW that they can support their argument with. It's a crucial but simple difference.
I know zip about rugby. If I was given a vote on whether we should allow a certain kind of tackle, my vote would count but be utterly worthless in real terms as I might as well blindly pick. A short quiz on the basic rules of rugby and the likelihood of spinal damage in the case of said tackle would be ensure I have at least a modicum of understanding on which I have based my vote.

Overall I guess is it any wonder why politicians usually do what they prefer considering that left to the public, some of the most monoliths of events eg, brexit are left to the public to vote upon.

To be honest I'd rather prefer the one world government.

Those of you advocating “elections” for written out policies have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding (ignorance actually) of the principles of British representative government and the British constitution. I recommend you read Bagehot and Mill.

Until you do, you are too ignorant of what you’re voting for to have a vote.

You see, that’s how it works, according to you.

The problem with voting for policies (well, one of them) is that you might well feel more strongly about one thing than another.

If I agree with party A on two issues, but don't really care that much about those issues, but agree with party B only on one issue, about which I feel very strongly, then it is not irrational for me to vote for B. Some people have one over-riding issue (the obvious example is Welsh/ Scottish independence) which they base their vote on. That is their right.

OP - I'm the biggest elitist around and am snobbish about people who are wilfully ignorant, but even I know that everyone's views have to be taken into account, not just those you and I might agree with. Yes, that's the 'Problem of Democracy' as Plato foresaw!

As others have mentioned - Churchill put it brilliantly: it's far from perfect but better than any other system.

I think only prisoners and peers of the realm are barred from voting in this country (??).

@CoffeeCantata Erskine May - Peers who sit in the House of Lords are disqualified from voting. A few other categories of person are disqualified too.

I think you are viewing voting behaviour to much in a rational and logical way.

Most voters base their decision on how they or their parents have always voted in the past. The majority of floating voters decide on voting for whoever is not currently in power each time on the basis of " well they can't be any worse than the current government " .

I think that’s true in some constituencies because there are ingrained beliefs and traits. It’s floating voters in marginals that matter most. However marginal constituencies are possibly quite a few now. The 1997 election was won with 418 seats for Labour. 1983 saw 397 seats for the Conservatives. Boundary changes tend to make it more difficult for Labour but we do have many seats that will fluctuate. Usually over something they don’t like, eg stalling on Brexit, poor leadership of a party and economic reasons.

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.
OP if you are studying this you must be aware that in the UK general election system, votes are very from of equal value. In many places your vote will count for nothing if you don't vote for a candidate from the incumbent party as the area is a safe seat.

Most people agree on what the problems we want to solve are (with a liittle tinkering around edge causes).
The problem is that all political idealogies claim to have the solutions. There aren't "objective facts" about the efficacy of 99% of political policies as their proponents will always cite additional reasons why they didn't work out as promised - that is politics.

I take it that you're still studying OP? Keep it up until you reach a more reasoned conclusion.

If you knew how few the number of people it takes to decide who is in government, you'd be worried. It's shockingly low. Less than 75,000.

That's 75,000 people whose votes decided who won the 2019 election. Now imagine if you could find those voters and offer them £10,000 a piece to vote how you instruct.

You, my data totin' friend have just bought an election.

Obviously that wouldn't be possible without FPTP. Which is probably reason enough to dump it.

Also, if you "always vote <party>" then don't be surprised when <party> does fuck all for you. Why would they ? You've already voted for them. They are much more likely to promise a floating or switch voter a better policy. Look at the way the Tories have shafted perma-Tory voters these past few years.

Also if you live in the constituency that the speaker represents you do not get a chance to vote for any of the main three parties as Conservatives, Labour and Liberals do not put a candidate up against the speaker. In the general elections of 2010, 2015 and 2017 I along with everyone else in my constituency only had the choice of voting for one of the minor parties, independent or speaker, that did not feel democratic at all.

Oh, just for perspective, if you are illegally denied your vote - for whatever reason - it's exact value has been set as "fuck all".

Yes - your vote actually is worthless.

Something I bear in mind if people want to lecture on democracy,

Yes, @PretzelKnot , Churchill summed it up.

Look at the way the Tories have shafted perma-Tory voters these past few years.
Indeed and look at the way they say "please please shaft us some more" any time there's any political debate by wanging on about Corbyn. Twats.

This is why we get cycles in governments. It's no coincidence that the Tories were evicted after 18 years of rule.

Q: What drives the uptake of new ideas* ?
A: Old people die.

As true now as it was when I wasn't old 😀

*Except email.

What about adults with learning disabilities? People with short term memory loss? Prople who are functionally illiterate? They are massively vulnerable and dependent on the government providing them with the services they need. Do you think people with learning disabilities shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Well if you can't navigate the new identity requirements you are effectively disenfranchised anyway.

Well, quite. But people with learning difficulties will have a PA or parent or someone caring for them who will be able to help them access ID. I presume they won't be allowed to help them to do a test where they have to name the leader of the Liberal Democrats if they want to vote!