Election default.......

Fighteer: No, image coming into a election locale.
You get into a small cabin like thingy with curtains, and there is a computer screen in fronter of you.
You identify yourself somehow(be it before you enter, or some citizen ID thingy on the machine).
And then you pick what you want to vote for. Be it Part A with an extra vote on candidate Z, or just party B.
Then 4-5 questions pop up on the screen, picked at random.
Simple questions about what the party stands for, and what they intend to do.
If you fail, you will not get a message about it. At the least not now. Vote does not get counted.
If you succeed, the vote is valid, and it gets counted.
And nothing like a school test(where half of the idea is to find the best buried question the textbook supports), but rather something from the flier. Can also be asked in negative(Does this party NOT x?).
For the defaulters, their entire reason for voting is "I am going to vote for these guys, that is it.", and they do not even bloody care.
If they actually are aware of what they are voting and supporting, then the vote will get trough. HOWEVER, for those who do not, it will fail.
(also: lets be cynical and lets say 5-20% fail anyhow due randomness error, well, it will still benefit the minority parties)

I see you completely ignored my highly significant point about the fact that many people will not be able to answer the questions, even if so simple as to render them pointless, meaning you're forced to discriminate against their status as handicapped in such a way that makes answering a test difficult.

Congratulations on either ruining the point of everyone having the chance to vote or creating a two tier, highly discriminatory society.

I can only imagine who would write the questions, and how misleading they could be.

If you want to invent this kind of thing for an advisory website...go for it! Hell, do some push-polling with it...but if you even brought it near my Ballot, I would feed it to you in reverse.

Caissas Death Angel: Then where did I say that making the test more than "is this on their large flier which contains their political agenda" would be a good idea then?
And why is a idiocracy a satisfying solution?

Because of experience that selective voting criteria were abused. Heavily.

I would rather accept that people vote stupidly than let the system take away my vote.

edited 25th May '11 2:53:21 PM by blueharp

Some people simply cannot do tests. It's as simple as that. They might have learning or mental health difficulties, they might be infirm, anything like that.

They are still entitled to vote however. Who the fuck are you to decide that someone can't vote because they can't do a test? That's a general comment by the way, not specifically directed at you, but the idea does increase my anger levels as it implies all manner of bad things.

Everyone is equal. Everyone should be able to vote. Everyone's vote should count. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to have a good look at themselves and think "I'm advocating a two tier society, whereby certain people are...not entitled...to vote."

edited 25th May '11 2:55:44 PM by CaissasDeathAngel

Aside from the whole voting discrimination thing in general, what I find particularly disturbing about this idea is that you never find out whether your vote counted or not. You take the test, then you cast your ballot, then you're done. Then the totals are announced. At no point do you get told, "Oh, hey, you got question 5 wrong and we threw out your vote." Which simply makes it even easier for the people in charge of the tests to game the system because they can throw out whatever ballots they want and the people who cast them have no way of proving that they were thrown out, or that they shouldn't have been.

Madrugada:

Caissas Death Angel: But the first post states "indirect democracy"(well, western), and the infrigiment has not yet been proposed.
You are missing the forst for the birds, for we already allow handicapped people who have severe trouble even getting to the locale to vote, and preday votes. If that is your issue, there will be a workaround.
Hence, your reason against it are illogical.

blueharp: Why would the system take away your vote?

Edit: Usht? Really? Who said the tests was needed to be designed like that?

edited 25th May '11 3:20:48 PM by del_diablo

The thing is with tests is that they're easy to rig in multiple choice. You can simply not give that option to begin with or skew results based on how you want them to be without being caught. A simple "This guy or that guy" choice can't be skewed nearly as easily without false vote counting going on.

So idiocy is now an acceptable fault by which to discriminate? Being a moron isn't against the law, and it shouldn't stop you voting. I'm not certain most BNP voters are fit to be a part of society - but I won't stop them voting, it's their right to do so.

Make political awareness a mandatory thing, and you completely undermine democracy. Same reason I adamantly believe absolutely everyone should vote every chance they get, and adamantly believe that compulsory voting should under no circumstances become law.

Caissas Death Angel: And? What is the problem with that? You apparently have no problem with the politicans sitting on their arses 4 years anyhow.
Lottery and dices is not a democracy. Not knowing anything means that it is all chance.
What is the point of having a democracy if nobody actually knows what they are voting for?
Besides, what is so bad about demanding that every single voter is suppose to KNOW shit?

: Nice red herring? Really? I recommend banning life next, because it is abused. The same about society, social relationships, and a lot more!

edited 25th May '11 3:28:09 PM by del_diablo

The why is irrelevant, your system lets it happen. That is the problem. I don't even approve of denying convicted felons their vote, why would I approve of any system that has any chance of taking away a vote?

That's been abused before, it'd be abused again.

That is the problem with your system. Wanting people to know shit is a fine goal, but selectivity will be abused.

And what Red herring? That is the fundamental objection to your system. All it takes is one person being unfairly deprived the right to vote and you've created a problem. You may be optimistic enough to believe it won't happen, but I am not going to take that risk with voting.

Try not to come up with hysterical counter-examples. Your life is a valuable thing, not to be taken away. It's also why I oppose the death penalty.

edited 25th May '11 3:32:10 PM by blueharp

The simple fact that if you deny certain people the right to vote, you're on a very slippery slope to making it okay to discriminate against them in other ways.

Intolerance and discrimination aren't acceptable in other areas of society - why voting? People are still a part of society even if they aren't directly interested in the specifics of who runs it. Thus, they still have a right to have a say in who runs it.

I'm greatly affected by consumer rights law, because I'm a consumer. Should I be forced to study it? Should those who can't or won't be denied access to certain consumer options? Where does it start and end? Why can't you see how ridiculous and anti-freedom this idea is?

No one said the test needed to be designed like that, but it's not exactly hard to rig this sort of stuff in a political setting. More so, if someone just happens to make a minor mistake, because you know, being human and all, then that person's vote counts for jack. Let people vote regardless.

Caissas Death Angel: Then propose a better option.
And what if society turns into "I know what this party does, so I will vote for them!" and hence the new default was created? Why has none actually raised this point either?

Usht: That is also red herring. And it can also happen today, and is happening to day. It is not acceptable today to setup false pools, especially on anything critical, why should it be encourages under this "system"?

edited 25th May '11 3:31:11 PM by del_diablo

Propose a better option? The system is fine as it is, though First Past The Post needs to take a flying fuck to itself and be replaced by Proportional Representation. It's really as simple as that. Beyond that, the system is fine.

Caissas Death Angel: But "the election system is rigged on the way each votes counts" does not equal "the problem is the default option".
I am from a country with what you are proposing, and the "default option" is a much larger problem.

Proove it.

No, DD, that's not a red herring, all it takes is someone screwing around with the multiple choice system behind the backs of others, especially if the deal is done by machine. Heck, it can even more easily happen by accident. At least with plain old counting, the number of errors that can possible occur is greatly lessened. The level of hard to track corruption that occur in this system is way higher than before.

Maybe in the UK and some Euro countries, but in the US simple majority voting (aka FPTP) is highly necessary owing to several factors among them the sheer idiocy of letting the coasts have greater say over what goes on in heartland states than the heartland states themselves who know their issues through and through.

There's ways to do Proportional Representation with districts. I'll even take it on a state-by-state basis.

Not like we don't have enough gerrymandering to make questions of votes on that level being fair.

You know what's funny, that's more or less exactly how states and districts are done in the US House of Representatives presently. Each state gets a specific number of representatives (based on census tallies and are re-calculated every 10 years) and the state divides itself into an equal number of districts based on how many seats they have in the House. The winner of each district represents that district in the House.

Except for the part I mentioned about Gerrymandering.

That's cause when each state divides itself into districts, they can do so in ways that dilute votes, or over-represent others.

Did you not know about that happening?

Proportional Representation doesn't require First Past the Post. It's all about districting, not vote counting.

I know all too well. My own county and town was part of a gerrymandering run in 2000. (Or was it 2004? It was within the last 12 years since Colorado gained seats in the 2000 census) Problem is, gerrymandering is a non-issue. It's not stopping people from voting and as we've seen in very recent elections trying to cement power via that way is not guaranteed. (In my district in Colorado, we got rid of our local representative who thought he had his seat locked in because the district was gerrymandered to favor the more liberal voters of the city of Pueblo.)