Foxestalk Premier Debating Club

[davieG]

Debate Guidelines:

• Do NOT abuse other posters treat all views with respect
  
• Do NOT state your voting preference directly in this topic - wait for the formal poll
  
• Do NOT just agree or disagree please state why you agree or disagree
  
• Please feel free to add additional arguments both for and/or against the proposal
  
• Please avoid multiple posting try to make your points in as few a posts as is practicable
  
• Remember contributors may NOT believe/agree with what they are saying they could be creating discussion points
  

Any Queries regarding the debate post them HERE

This Topic will open for discussion on Tuesday 12th February 2008 - please refrain from discussing the proposal in other threads

Thanks

davieG

[davieG]

Hullfox proposes the following motion:

This forum believes

Prospective electors should pass some form of IQ test before being allowed to vote at local and national election!

Okay, hands up who believes that our political system is fine just as it is?

Exactly - It isn't.

Even the Electoral Commission state on their own website that "The UK's electoral processes are rooted in 19th Century practices and legislation and need fundamental reform in order to safeguard confidence."

So, given that if you have read this far you agree that the system and the results it produces are not right, who then is to blame? Who are the one group of people who can enforce change within society on a regular basis?

Who are the one group of people who number in excess of 44 million whose decision making have got us to where we are today? – It's the voters.

Only 3 in 5 people eligible to vote at the last General Election actually did. So how do we change that?

One option often cited is for voting to be made obligatory.

However, will this bring around the fundamental change that we all seek? Countries like Belgium and Australia have recently recorded turnouts in excess of 90% in elections but are their political systems viewed any better by their electorate? Absolutely not, log online to any of their daily newspapers and try and spot the difference between our respective societies.

So if obligatory voting serves only to perpetuate the existing problems, what can we do?

A CATO Institute study in America stated about the forthcoming Presidential elections; "Here they come – The earnest exhortations to get out and vote. You'll be hearing it on the television and on the radio. You'll see it in Newspaper ads and hear it from your neighbours.....you get the idea. Everyone has a duty to vote they will say."

"No they don't. If a person is utterly ignorant about matters of public policy then he or she has a solemn obligation to refrain from voting."

They argue that democracy demands an informed electorate. Voters who lack adequate knowledge about politics will find it difficult to control public policy. Inadequate voter knowledge prevents government from reflecting the true will of the people in any meaningful way. Such ignorance also raises doubts about democracy as a means of serving the interests of a majority. Voters who lack sufficient knowledge may well be manipulated by others.

That has to be as true in the UK as it is in America. How many people here base their voting habits on family traditions or even on the advice from their daily newspaper? Rupert Murdoch can win or lose a General Election on what he prints. That cannot be right.

Without fundamental change, these traits will only continue and the perpetuation of the problem will continue ad infinitum.

So, if the system isn't right and needs changing and the answer does not lie in obligatory voting, what exactly is the basis of the required fundamental reform going to take?

If you can accept that society would be served better by an informed electorate then this can only be achieved in two ways. One is to inform the electorate better or, more radically to only allow more informed voters to participate in electing our leaders.

In an ideal world, all 44 million of our nation's voters would be better informed. However, the time required to educate numerous generations could indeed stretch to numerous generations. Has our political system got that long though?

If we truly believe that it is dysfunctional and we are truly unhappy with its 19th Century practices, then the only realistic option is to only allow informed voters to participate in elections whilst educating en mass. The only way to achieve this therefore is to require prospective voters to pass some form of IQ test. Many people would argue that such streaming would not be suitable because it would be divisive – after all are not all men born equal?

Well, wake up and smell the coffee. Look at the world around you. The world is divisive – All men are not born equal and if you really want to make it more equal, including yourself then accept that radical reform is necessary.

IQ testing in its present form would not be ideal as it concentrates far too much on the mathematical and spacial problem solving abilities of candidates rather than social awareness. However passing a form of testing based upon social and political awareness would ensure that the electorate are better prepared to enforce the necessary changes to improve society as a whole, and for everyone.

How these tests would look is not important at this stage, it is the concept that matters. A basic understanding of what is on offer politically has to be beneficial. At the last election, over 50 parties stood across the country.

It surely has to be time that some of the more extreme ones were starved of the oxygen they need by engaging them with a better informed electorate. It is time that our political leaders started wooing us rather than Rupert Murdoch and it is time that we ensured that Parliament worked for the good of us all.

In conclusion, our political system isn't working. Our own Electoral Commission says it needs fundamental reform.

Major change can only come from the nation's 44 million voters but it is these very same people that are perpetuating the problem.

If you want the system to stand still or worsen, do nothing.

If you want improvement, vote for this proposal.

[davieG]

Ultra opposes the following motion:

This forum believes

Prospective electors should pass some form of IQ test before being allowed to vote at local and national election!

"The right to vote is one of the most basic freedoms we have. It's a symbol of civilisation - both from the feudal systems of the government which existed during the past millennium and from the corrupt dictatorships which still disfigure some parts of the planet today.

Readers of this message are only able to access these words because they have the benefits of access to education and technology – benefits which ruling elites have historically denied to the majority of the population, and in some countries continue to do so.

And yet there are some among us who argue that those elites should be given not less power, but more!

The idea of an "intelligence test" to determine who is able to vote in any local or national election, raises some very serious issues. Who would be the judge of "intelligence"? And how low (or high) would any barrier be set?

Sixty years ago, the man who led Britain to the most important victory in its history said "Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others that have been tried."

Those words remain as true now as when he uttered them.

You may not like the choices people make when casting votes. But ultimately, those choices have to be respected.

Famously, the American War of Independence was fought on the issue of "no taxation without representation". That argument is still as valid today as it was in 1776. Most folk, even unemployed or unwaged pay some form of taxes (except for the very-rich who hoard their wealth in offshore bank accounts). It's entirely reasonable to allow them to exert influence, however minor, on how the receipts from such taxes are spent.

Do we really want to slide towards tinpot dictatorship, or worse still eugenics, where the state decides to allow or deny the most basic right of all – the right to life?

The state should serve the people, not vice versa.

History quite rightly treats the likes of the Chartists and suffragettes as inspirational figures. They fought (and in some cases died) for the cause of universal human rights which we today take for granted.

Anyone who considers they were wrong to do so is swimming against a very powerful tide."

[davieG]

We're now open for debate let's hear what you've got to say about this usbject and the views of Hullfox & Ultra.

[coale39]

Most people are idiots. So not allowing most people to vote would be wrong.

[The People's Hero]

Hullfox's argument makes sense.

Ultra's is fatally flawed.

Can't say I was surprised to see him arguing against IQ tests though!

[Manwell Pablo]

I honestly don't get Ultras arguement. Talk of dictatorship, suffrajets etc. Alot of it seems irrelevent.

[Zingari]

i had already almost certainly made up my mind before i read the arguments and saw nothing in hullfox's (well worded )argument to change it

ultra's quote

The idea of an "intelligence test" to determine who is able to vote in any local or national election, raises some very serious issues. Who would be the judge of "intelligence"? And how low (or high) would any barrier be set?

this just about basically sums up why the whole argument is a non starter so its a vote for ultra from me

enjoyed reading the posts though

[Bryn]

I think the proposal itself is fatally flawed on a number of levels. The first being that the right to vote is, as said, one of the most fundamental rights we have, and to deny people the right based on intelligence should seem abhorrent in todays faux-inclusive society, like a reverse Pol Pot but with less death. Though, there is a loose precedent. Under common law people with learning disabilities or a mental illness if, on polling day, they are incapable of making a reasoned judgement (And please, please don't take that as me saying that those with learning disabilities etc. are unintelligent. I'm making the comparison purely based on the idea of people not being able to make "a reasoned judgement".) The second being that intelligence tests are far from a perfect test of intelligence, especially as these days we know there are many ways intelligence can manifest itself, and that's if you find an appropriate definition of intelligence to being with. A test with looks at how social aware a person is may be more workable but I'd still have doubts.

Personally I think the answer to this lies, as I think most things do, at a young age. By design we do all our learning at a young age and yet so many subjects are barely touched upon from an early age; sex, drugs and of course the third vice, politics being major ones. I think if kids are introduced to politics from an early age they will be far more informed in later life and will be more conditioned towards remaining socially aware.

To relate this directly to the proposal, I suppose this puts me on the opposing team.

[Daggers]

[Alexikokopops]

i had already almost certainly made up my mind before i read the arguments and saw nothing in hullfox's (well worded )argument to change it

ultra's quote

The idea of an "intelligence test" to determine who is able to vote in any local or national election, raises some very serious issues. Who would be the judge of "intelligence"? And how low (or high) would any barrier be set?

this just about basically sums up why the whole argument is a non starter so its a vote for ultra from me

enjoyed reading the posts though

My personal view is that an IQ test as such wouldn't work, but some kind of test to prove you have even a basic grasp of politics would be a proposal that would be worth thinking about.

I'm registered to vote but I don't because I personally feel I don't know enough about politics to make a reasoned decision, I'd probably end up just going "OMG, LIEK LABOUR SUX0RZ!" and accidentally vote Tory because they're blue like Leicester City.

[Daggers]

I think if kids are introduced to politics from an early age they will be far more informed in later life and will be more conditioned towards remaining socially aware.

Children take their cues for life from their parents and immediate family so I don't see introducing kids to politics having any real effect at all aside from maybe desensitising them to it at an earlier age?

Kids are introduced to the concepts of sex at an early age and throughout their schooling but we still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe (can't be arsed to look up actual fact to support this, sorry). You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it have sex with a condom or vote based on an informed decision.

Or mix a metaphor.

[DB11]

Ultra's argument isn't particularly convincing, not in the slightest, however my personal opinion is that you shouldn't need to take a test to be able to vote.

[James.]

Ultra's argument isn't particularly convincing, not in the slightest, however my personal opinion is that you shouldn't need to take a test to be able to vote.

I 100% agree with you.

[The People's Hero]

Ultra's argument isn't particularly convincing, not in the slightest, however my personal opinion is that you shouldn't need to take a test to be able to vote.

So you agree DESPITE Ultra and not BECAUSE of Ultra.

Sounds like Ultra made the WORST pitch ever!

[Zingari]

My personal view is that an IQ test as such wouldn't work, but some kind of test to prove you have even a basic grasp of politics would be a proposal that would be worth thinking about.

I'm registered to vote but I don't because I personally feel I don't know enough about politics to make a reasoned decision, I'd probably end up just going "OMG, LIEK LABOUR SUX0RZ!" and accidentally vote Tory because they're blue like Leicester City.

i very much doubt that

but even if it were true i'm sure the dimwits voting for political parties on colour choice would cancel each other out

or maybe even favour labour slightly

[Bryn]

Children take their cues for life from their parents and immediate family so I don't see introducing kids to politics having any real effect at all aside from maybe desensitising them to it at an earlier age?

Kids are introduced to the concepts of sex at an early age and throughout their schooling but we still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe (can't be arsed to look up actual fact to support this, sorry). You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it have sex with a condom or vote based on an informed decision.

Or mix a metaphor.

I would argue that physiologically and psychologically sex is innately different to politics. We're conditioned to go out looking for it the minute we are able to and we're probably more likely to overrule any words of caution given to us by any way. Though that might not quite be to your point which was more about "informed sex".... I'd say most teenage pregnancies stem from pure, irrational desire that cuts through anything previously told, either in that it is completely spontaneous, or the girl is convinced not to use protection by a guy with more testosterone than brain cells.

More to the point, I don't know anyone that was introduced in any way to difficult matters at Primary School which is where I would begin. I went to a Catholic primary school where from the moment you walked through the door you were introduced to concepts such as sharing, peace, empathy etc. more so than most of the other schools in the area, rather than just having God forced down your throat. I think in that respect I was lucky. The point is, the school despite being smaller and less equipped than other schools in the area continually churned out generally respectful and successful kids. My qualm would be that we weren't prepared for the rougher edges of life; we weren't properly introduced to topics like sex, drugs, society issues etc. and the respectful and successful kids are often quite ill prepared to deal with things like violence and drug use that are widespread in secondary school and beyond. But that in itself shows just large an affect education has on how a child is shaped.

As an aside, my primary school recently had a change in headteacher who doesn't focus so much on the things I was taught by my teachers. The school is rapidly going downhill.

Sorry if this rambled off topic too much by the way.

[l444ry]

If you want a system based on best knowledge, democracy would be unravelled a little so that only persons with an education or appropriate experience would have the vote. But this is absurd - as we know, the graduate community in our ruling classes undertake stupid act after stupid act and a fine education is absolutely no guarantee of wisdom despite the claims of the liberal. Moreover, an education in fine arts to a graduate level may be less valuable than the insights of a single mother who works on the buses in Luton.

OK, so if we reject the special privileges of a formal education or even the IQ test (an appallingly failed judge of wisdom and character) or even excluding those tested as, say, of clearly less ability according to citizenship tests (god preserve us from liberal totalitarians) or whatever, where do we go from here?

The sensible approach is to consider the matter as one of the wisdom of crowds and try to get as many people as possible to contribute to the general thrust of representing the national mood at that time in that place when the vote is cast.

The point at which a "bright" person may be said to be a "bright" person is arbitrary (like the issue when what starts in the womb is a baby rather than a foetus) but there are teenage kids with more wisdom than men of 60 and a better sense of what the world has become rather than what the world is.

I have no hesitation in going along with Ultra.

[hairy]

Surely the level of intelligence of the nation in general is related to the level of education provided by the state in the majority of cases.

There are those elite members of society who can afford to put their offspring through a private education system which should leads to better education / intelligence. If therefore an IQ test were to be introduced this would make voting elitist and favour the elite members of society, thus returning to the darker ages of our electoral system. In theory this would leave our political system unbalanced in terms of the political spectrum which would be bad for a society as a whole.

[Manwell Pablo]

Surely the level of intelligence of the nation in general is related to the level of education provided by the state in the majority of cases.

There are those elite members of society who can afford to put their offspring through a private education system which should leads to better education / intelligence. If therefore an IQ test were to be introduced this would make voting elitist and favour the elite members of society, thus returning to the darker ages of our electoral system. In theory this would leave our political system unbalanced in terms of the political spectrum which would be bad for a society as a whole.

I don't think anyone would entertain the idea of having a test so difficult that it would only suit the better educated or more intelligent, I think the general idea of having a test is to stop those without the foggiest what they are doing or who they are voting for voting for the BNP and such like.

[Zingari]

I don't think anyone would entertain the idea of having a test so difficult that it would only suit the better educated or more intelligent, I think the general idea of having a test is to stop those without the foggiest what they are doing or who they are voting for voting for the BNP and such like.

Maybe so, but votes for extremist political parties are good indicators of unrest in the mainstream and their value as such should not be underestimated. And i'm pretty sure that nick griffin could pass any required test but it did not stop him becoming a BNP candidate ( so presumably he voted for them previously )

[Webbo]

I think the general idea of having a test is to stop those without the foggiest what they are doing or who they are voting for voting for the BNP and such like.

And that is why it is such a dangerous idea. I'd never vote for those knuckle dragging morons but I don't think people should be stopped from voting for them, any more than voting for the worker's revolutionary party or militant tendency. Where does it all stop? Especially as the governing party would be the ones to chose.

PS thanks to Hullfox for playing devil's advocate as I don't believe for a minute he genuinely believes what he wrote.

[Lillehamring]

Debate Guidelines:

• Do NOT abuse other posters treat all views with respect
  
• Do NOT state your voting preference directly in this topic - wait for the formal poll
  
• Do NOT just agree or disagree please state why you agree or disagree
  
• Please feel free to add additional arguments both for and/or against the proposal
  
• Please avoid multiple posting try to make your points in as few a posts as is practicable
  
• Remember contributors may NOT believe/agree with what they are saying they could be creating discussion points
  

Any Queries regarding the debate post them HERE

This Topic will open for discussion on Tuesday 12th February 2008 - please refrain from discussing the proposal in other threads

Thanks

davieG

Hullfox's argument makes sense.

Ultra's is fatally flawed.

Can't say I was surprised to see him arguing against IQ tests though!

anyway....

well done, firstly to both debaters, good solid well researched arguments.

i would like to add FOR the proposal that perhaps such a system is in place already, without any actual testing, whilst i do not have the demographics to hand i would suspect that the percentage of those who actually bother to vote these days come from an educated background. that is not to say all intelligent people chose to vote, or that an uneducated person will not vote. the point is that it takes an educated mind to follow political debate with conviction. if ones political opinions are dictated purely by what one reads in the sun, then perhaps such people should be excluded from voting if their vote is guided purely by the opinion of tabloids.

it is worth considering in the last US election, where voter demographics were available, that the majority of Kerry voters were of a standard of education to university level, whereas Bush's demographic was significantly the reverse of this....

AGAINST the argument, returning again to American politics, which should be considered as the yardstick, given the fact that it is one of the most recently formed democratic systems; the system present there is formed on the premise of government 'of the people, by the people, for the people' - which still stands today as the ultimate gesture of equality, take away anyones right to be involved in the democratic system and, effectively, you are taking away their status as 'people'.

here's another perspective of Winston Churchill:

"The strongest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter. "

It is the 'average' voter that such a scheme as that debated here would seek to remove - perhaps the most noble solution, however, is to bring every eligible voter up to an adequate level of political understanding, sadly neither the politicians nor the 'average' voter seem to have any particular desire to see this happen.

[hairy]

I don't think anyone would entertain the idea of having a test so difficult that it would only suit the better educated or more intelligent, I think the general idea of having a test is to stop those without the foggiest what they are doing or who they are voting for voting for the BNP and such like.

Thus reducing the political spectrum

[Rincewind]

The way you vote and political views you hold depends on many things. Your home life, influences from parents, then school, what lessons you have, the friends you mix with, who you mix with at work, the kind of job you have and what social circle you move in.

Now who should the IQ tests be restricted to? Do people in the inner cities get a refusal because their education and living standards were not as good as somebody living in Kensington? I know little about politics but I am not stupid. Most people vote because of the circumstances around them. Someone from a inner city housing estate life cannot relate to the high power in politics and why certain laws ar passed. They see things in black and white. Should they be denied a say in who represents them in Parliment? Who would present the test and what form would it take? Would the questions be fair or loaded?

These are the worries that I have so I have to go with Ultra on this one. people will always vote with their heart not their brains so a test would change nothing.