To believe that people should have to pass a test to vote?

[ZanyWriter]

If you can’t understand basic political issues or policies, why should your vote count as much as someone who does? AIBU to think voting shouldn’t be a universal right?

So there’s something that exists called ‘The Good Judgement Project’.

it’s based on a book called ‘Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction’. The basic premise is that ‘the wisdom of crowds’ was find to be more accurate at predicting future events than the ‘experts’.

Based on that principle, I’d say it makes sense to have fewer, rather than more barriers to voting.

I love a mumsnet book recommendation. I've added it to my reading list. Thanks.🙂

Well the two things are a little different aren't they .personally I would be ok with a parenting test...a parent has a far more direct impact on a child than one persons vote on a country but you can't have that discussion without people screaming Nazi so let's not stray too far from the point. I don't think the difficulty in doing this should be a barrier to the principle. Someone mentioned schools before....I teach secondary and we do teach our political system and broadly what each party represents but as with may things, what they take from those lessons will vary enormously. Teaching isn't the same as learning.

Yes, and if old people were banned from voting since they are going to die anyway. And very rich people pay lots of tax so they should get several votes. Can’t see any flaws with this plan… 🙄

If you can source a copy (because mysteriously, it is very much a low-key book) then "If Voting Change Anything They'd Abolish It" by Ken Livingstone is well worth a read. It covers the time when the democratically elected GLC happened to be diametrically opposed to the democratically elected government of the day.

It has a fascinating analysis of how the Tories and Thatcher broke British democracy. An analysis which still stands to this day (and the fact it's rarely mentioned suggests it's actually bang on the money, weirdly). If Kemi Badenoch or Nigel Farage read (and understood it) then they'd be PM tomorrow. However I'm not sure either of them can read.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Voting-Changed-Anything-Theyd-Abolish/dp/0002177706

I think taking voting away in certain circumstances is well worth considering, for starters I'd take them straight away from anyone currently serving a sentence for any crime, on the basis that if you refuse to follow the laws you shouldn't get a say in making them (I also support a small number of crimes, like not paying TV licence, no longer being crimes so that shouldn't stop people).

I think making people pass a test before they can actually use any of their basic freedoms, before there's any cause for concern, is too draconian though, and I think voting for the people who will govern you is one of those.

Prisoners can't vote. Despite an ECHR ruling that they should, the UK has never allowed it.

Worth remembering that if anyone ever says anything about "foreign judges" again. The UK can - and has - defied them.

How much tax paid counts? Do you get more votes the more skin in the game you have - I pay income tax, VAT, road tax, council tax etc, so do I get a few votes but not as much as someone who paid IHT and CGT this year? Does a foreign national who bought a Twix here on holiday get a tiny bit of a vote for the 20% VAT they paid?

#tell me you forgot there's other taxes than income tax without telling me you forgot there's other taxes than income tax

I work in elderly dementia care, we have to assist our residents to complete postal votes. They have no idea about current politics, and whilst we always ensure to cross the box they select, it does make me wonder why people who have been deemed as lacking in capacity and have no understanding of the current political climate, are allowed to vote.

But equally I'm torn as everyone should have a voice.

We could be reinventing how it used to be. When number of votes was based on land ownership

Isn't there a stipulation that people voting need to be "of sound mind" ? Why else are people detained for mental health denied a vote ?

I'd stick with that but go even further though, as I say, I'd take voting away during the length of ANY sentence, even if you're not a prisoner but are doing community service for example. You can go back to deciding what laws to make when you're finished with breaking them (or haven't been caught yet unfortunately).

So you don't think people with learning disabilities should get a vote, despite being some of the most marginalised people in society, who are disproportionately affected by political decisions?

I have a sibling with a disability and I would fight to the death for their right to vote.

Well either way you have universal suffrage or you have a dictatorship (of some of the people at least). There are different kinds of democracy- and some are shit and not representative of the people it should be- but all should be based on being human, of a certain age and having a vested interest in the country in which you are voting. That is all. Also OP you’d fail the test.

We might as well just gather a cabal of the royal family, the Duke of Westminster etc and just have them vote then? Would save a lot of time and organisation to be fair but I'm not sure it would be a good thing 😄

It's complicated but you can read about it on the electoral commission website. They say lack of mental capacity isn't the same as lack of legal capacity. It hurt my head reading about it all the first time.

@RhaenysRocks

'Teaching isn't the same as learning....

So true. Such a fine line between teaching what to think and teaching how to think.

Does your siblings have the capacity to understand what they are voting for? That's the simple question and if the answer is no then I don't think they should ..unless you could come up with a bomb proof way to ascertain a proxy vote that would represent their best interests.

This always interests me. There are derogations in each article of the Human Rights Act (and of course the ECHR ) which are subject to judicial interpretation. Who judges the judges?

I have some sympathy with this idea OP, but it really isn’t feasible. There is no way of doing it that wouldn’t risk making things worse.

What do you mean by ‘real skin in the game’?

It's seriously scary how many people agree with this idea. Democracy is our only hope against dictatorship.

That's the system in Australia. It is compulsory for everyone of voting age to do so unless you're dead or too ill, which, in both cases must be proved.

It's supposed to be a trial of equals though so the upper classes don't abuse the poor. That's the while point of the jury system.

Everyone is a taxpayer; we all pay VAT, if nothing else.

I assume you mean income tax payers, so you're basically saying that only people over a certain income should vote. Which is similar to pre-democracy days, when only property owners were allowed to vote.

Poor people also have skin in the game!