Sally,

Thanks so much for the nods. I will have to read this more carefully before I comment, but I just wanted to let you know I've seen it. I have a pretty heavy work schedule at the moment and don't have the time I usually do to spend here.

Well I was reading a great article by the wonderful Dynamaso

I don't know about the 'wonderful' bit but I will take it anyway (I'm a sucker for flattery of any sort).

Sally,

Thanks so much for the nods. I will have to read this more carefully before I comment, but I just wanted to let you know I've seen it. I have a pretty heavy work schedule at the moment and don't have the time I usually do to spend here.

Well I was reading a great article by the wonderful Dynamaso

I don't know about the 'wonderful' bit but I will take it anyway (I'm a sucker for flattery of any sort).

Stupid people have the right to represent themselves just like anyone else.

This is true and should close the argument. While allowing 'fools' a voice in dictating national policy might not initially seem the best way of doing things, I am reminded of what Churchill said, "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.".

What is more interesting is the way in which certain checks and balances seem to be 'encoded' into the system, so that wisdom of a kind (usually) prevails. Whether it is because extremes cancel each other out, or politicians, being forced to do deals, often tend towards the uncontroversial middle, or even that there is sometimes a wisdom in crowds rarely found in individuals, the overall effect of our democratic governments seems to be towards a reasonable moderation and consensus, compared to the horrors that history has thrown up in the past and is throwing up in the present where democratic norms do not prevail.

Have a look around the forums here and see where the suggested solution to a complex world problem is "nuke 'em!" Then feel grateful that, while someone thinking that way can vote for the government, they are unlikely to be the government. (Otherwise our chances of surviving as a species beyond next week would probably be in the order of 1%. )

I will have to read this more carefully before I comment, but I just wanted to let you know I've seen it. I have a pretty heavy work schedule at the moment and don't have the time I usually do to spend here.

Aww well thanks for taking the time out to let me know you're here, much appreciated

sometimes a wisdom in crowds rarely found in individuals, the overall effect of our democratic governments seems to be towards a reasonable moderation and consensus, compared to the horrors that history has thrown up in the past and is throwing up in the present where democratic norms do not prevail.

This is a very good and one I did mean to bring up. The party that the girl I spoke about was talking about is a minority, and for a good reason. In general the crowd does have the wisdom to make the right decision. I just think everyone should be able to make an educated decision, and be made to realise the importance of such things.

Then feel grateful that, while someone thinking that way can vote for the government, they are unlikely to be the government.

Good point. Thanks for the comment x

There is a distinct difference between the way the Australian and the American public vote. Here, every one over the age of 18 MUST vote or they pay a fine. In America, only those who bother to register can vote. I'm not sure what happens in England, but I'm assuming it is the same as here in Australia.

The unfortunate thing is that, at least when I was at school, not a lot of emphasis was placed on present day politics, which meant we were let out into the world having a historical understanding of the politics of our country but not really knowing what was going on in the present day. For most, this wasn't too much of a problem as they voted the way their parents did or voted for someone whose name they recognised. Often times, I'm sure the most informed some of these people got was from the voting fliers handed to them on the way to the polling stations. Even though I don't consider myself a politics person, I still took the time, even as a young man, to at least be aware of the policies of the parties up for election and who the power players were.

I like Whip's idea of a basic civics exam of some sort before people can vote. At least then voters would have an understanding of the policies they were voting for and the effect their vote might have.

Good article, Sally.

I like Whip's idea of a basic civics exam of some sort before people can vote. At least then voters would have an understanding of the policies they were voting for and the effect their vote might have./quote]

Same here. It wouldn't have to held before every election. It could simply be something you do before you receive voting rights. So if you never sit the test, you never have to vote (dunno if it would be practical though; it would be a way out of voting, and compulsory voting is practically in the constitution it's so engrained).

The questions may as well be on the political system - ie what the role of the PM is, the role of his ministers, the roles of the cabinet, etc. It doesn't have to be hard, it just needs to show that the prospective voter has at least thought about how government is supposed to work.

Making voters know who the candidates are would mean practically noone would qualify for senate votes; could anyone really hope that many would remember all the candidates on NSW's tablecloth ballot last election? I think there were nearly 30.

We already do ban stupid people from voting.

If you are too stupid to care about voting, you don't vote.

If you are too stupid to register, you don't vote.

If you are too stupid to find the polling place, you don't vote.

If you are too stupid to get your act together on voting day, you don't vote.

Me? I figure, why have more laws for something that nature takes care of just fine without wasteful and oppressive government intervetion?

Cacto:

The questions may as well be on the political system - ie what the role of the PM is, the role of his ministers, the roles of the cabinet, etc. It doesn't have to be hard, it just needs to show that the prospective voter has at least thought about how government is supposed to work.

Yes, I agree. The questions don't have to be hard, but indepth enough so that those answering them have some understanding of the system.

Making voters know who the candidates are would mean practically noone would qualify for senate votes; could anyone really hope that many would remember all the candidates on NSW's tablecloth ballot last election? I think there were nearly 30.

True. But at least people should have some knowledge of the polices and maybe the power players.

I have the solution: stupid people get 1/2 vote, idiots 1/3 vote people that actually know who the candidates are and what they stand for 3/4 vote and really bright people, {much like me} get a full vote.

I'm not sure what happens in England, but I'm assuming it is the same as here in Australia.

No, it's not. Voting is not compulsory in the UK and I am happy with that. The Australian view is that voting is a civic duty: even if you don't want to vote for any of the candidates, you still have to turn up and you can then spoil your vote if you want to. In the UK you can make the same statement just by staying away. Traditionally, even without compulsory voting, the turnout in UK General Elections is in the 70-80% range. The last UK General Election (2005) however saw our lowest ever turnout (for a number of reasons) since universal adult suffrage, roughly the same (within about 1 or 2 percent) of the US turnout in 2004, which was one of their highest ever turnouts.

idiots 1/3 vote people that actually know who the candidates are and what they stand for 3/4 vote and really bright people, {much like me} get a full vote.

Actually until 1950 the UK had a not similar system, whereby graduates of certain universities had more than one vote. Oxford, Cambridge and my own alma mater, London University, had their own MPs and graduates could therefore vote for both their university MP and the MP for the constituency in which they lived. The last UK university constituency was actually Queen's University, Belfast, which returned an MP to the Parliament of Northern Ireland up until 1969.

The last UK General Election (2005) however saw our lowest ever turnout (for a number of reasons) since universal adult suffrage, roughly the same (within about 1 or 2 percent) of the US turnout in 2004, which was one of their highest ever turnouts.

IN the last half century.  It has only been in the last 60 years that the US voting levels have sunk to those lows.  Someone opined that the reason for low voter turnout is due to the comfort of the population.  The more comfortable, the less likely they are going to take the time to vote.  It does seem to bear out when one looks at emerging democracies and their rate of participation, and then older ones that have been doing it awhile.

Someone opined that the reason for low voter turnout is due to the comfort of the population. The more comfortable, the less likely they are going to take the time to vote.

I think that this is certainly part of the answer. The low turn out in 2005 in the UK was put down to a belief that Tony Blair was 'doing alright' and was bound to win again - and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy, although it is hard to know how many of the stay-at-homes would have voted for him and how many against. I think there are probably two 'main' groups of non-voters: the 'comfortable' (as you mention) and the 'hopeless' (i.e. that proportion of the population who think that voting changes very little in the end).