h a l f b a k e r yWhat's a nice idea like yours doing in a place like this?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
When coming in to vote on a referendum, you are given a basic question, on a sheet, of what the referendum is about. This is then attatched to your voting ballot. If you can basically detail what the vote is about, then your vote is counted. Without understanding of the real issues, your vote wouldn't
be counted. When the govt. realises that votes are falling because of lack of knowledge, they'll more readily supply info on upcoming referendums.
Similar strategies could be employed in elections, where one has to outline one or more policies of the politician you intend to vote for. If you cannot do this, your vote is not counted.
This disregards spelling, (though I dread sifting through badly-punctuated sheets) punctuation, and all other pedantic matters: what are important are the base issues. I don't want to sound like a facist, but people who are only voting a certain way "cos everyone else does" are not helping the democracy.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
It would be nice, but this would too easily morph into the Jim Crow laws all over again. Sorry. |
|
| |
Stupid people should not be allowed the vote? |
|
| |
Well at the present time you're on a vote of -1, let's see whether other people vote this way "cos everyone else does". |
|
| |
\\they'll more readily supply info on upcoming referendums\\. For "info" you can safely read "propaganda". |
|
| |
OK I've read the idea and I believe that I will remain neutral as this would most certantly be manipulated and as suggested has subtle fascist undertones. However the concept at its heart is good. |
|
| |
I voted against this because someone aleady had. |
|
| |
The huge problem is in who writes the test. Tests can easily be written to bias throwing out voters who disagree with the test writer. |
|
| |
Referendum to legalize voluntary euthanasia administered by doctors.
Q1) Euthanasia will send the recipient and the doctor to eternal hell. (Author says "True" is the right answer) |
|
| |
For more subtle abuses, do as RayfordSteele suggests and google "Jim Crow Laws" for many reasons why not. |
|
| |
Wow, [Bookends] you sound dutch. We just had a refrendum and I bet 90% of the 65% who voted did so out of spite without actually knowing what the vote was for. Still, it is all about who makes the question. Propaganda galore! Bone. |
|
| |
-aside- you should know that all DJ's that play dance music play vynil only because it sounds better which becomes clear when you use a big PA. In effect dance music is the salvation for vynil-end aside- |
|
| |
Oh, the test wouldn't really be written by anyone, cos it'd be the same every year. In a referendum, it'd be 'What does this side do?' and vice versa, and in an election, it'd be 'What does she stand for?' etc. |
|
| |
[waugsqueke] Point taken, but while it mightn't happen here on the HB, there are people who vote Republican or whatever just because they were brought up to do that, without any understanding of the issues at heart. |
|
| |
[goatfacekilla], no, it has nothing to do with stupidity, just an understanding of what is at stake in the vote. So you could be stupid but know what's going on and your vote would get counted or clever but lazy and it wouldn't. |
|
| |
sp? no need to say sorry, thanks. but isn't vinyl great though? |
|
| |
Ah, the joys of vinyl. It's so big and black and lovely, and also the music released in those times was so much better. And I'm ready for the insults because of this... |
|
| |
Ahem, [sophocles] I know what Jim Crow Laws are. :) Not to worry. I am sad that this idea is unpopular, because I don't think it deserves to be. It operates on the theory that if someone is not aware of the issues, they don't get to vote, and I think that's fair. |
|
| |
And how does it have more fishbones than "Weight-based Voting"? Come on. |
|
| |
This is already accomplished in the form of long queues at the voting booths. |
|
| |
Makes it unattractive for people to vote "just because their friends are going and voting" |
|
| |
Have the test created by a computer, and rearranged every time it's taken. |
|
| |
The idea is to have a multiple choice, copmputer marked test in the voting booth, which the voter must take. The results of this test will detrermine how much their vote is worth. If they get, say, half right, their vote is worth one point, but for every additional question they get right they get another point added to their vote. Or something similar, it will have to be based around what you would get if you just picked answers at random. |
|
| |
The test itself will be about what the issue is. For example, if electing a politican it will be about what the candidates stand for. If someone displays a lack of knowledge about who they are actually voting for, their vote will be worth a lot less than someone who does know what the candidates stand for. Making the test computer marked will allow for quick, as-you-vote testing, and also allow the test to be scrambled (questions moved around, re-prhrased, etc), so that people wn't be able to give their friends the answer list. |
|
| |
Such an idea would then allow us to throw the voting open to people of all ages, since those who can't understand the test won't get a vote anyway. |
|
| |
The test would be standardised questions used regardless of the candate. Perhaps there would be a collection of tests, one for each candidate? |
|
| |
If you make it multiple-choice and give it to a panel
of teachers to review it for social bias, I'm all in.
Otherwise, it can become subjective. Like it or not,
the leading disqualifier for determining the
impartiality of an elections official is a pulse. |
|
| |