NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think of them? Do you think they would be a good idea in a democratic society in refrence to voting?

For those who do not know what competency tests are, they are tests given to people in order to determine their maturity, ability to reason, their common sense, etc. Depending on how they do, they will be given privelages, such as the ability to vote, to drive, to own a gun, and other such thing, no matter the age. As long as they reach the score required to have a privelage, they are allowed the privelages.

Personally, I think compentency tests would be an excellent idea. That way we have the people who are normally too young to have privelages such as voting but tend to be more mature and have more common sense than most adults allowed to vote, and have the people who are old enough to vote but are less mature and have less common sense than most teenagers not allowed to vote.

And if you're wondering why I am back yet again, I just had the worst experience possible. Attempting to debate about politics and religion in the middle of an online game. I got kicked out of the server because I didn't agree with the admins opinions on Satanism.

Now then, OPINIONS PEOPLE!

To be honest, it makes sense. Keeping idiots out of the electoral system would hopefully keep idiots out of Parliament (or foreign equivalent). Keeping dangerous things like cars and guns out of the hands of drooling imbeciles also sounds like an excellent idea for public safety, and allows the rest of us to own and operate such things without so much form-filling and regulation.

On the other hand, I don't want to see this happen. I believe that people do have inalienable rights, such as voting and free speech, and I really wouldn't like to see people deprived of these rights for having below average intelligence. Not to mention that placing competency tests to win rights in the hands of the government leads to horrific potential for abuse. I doubt that they would use the opportunity; a democratic system seems to be a fairly good filter for removing tyrannical lunatics, although some slip through; but placing more power in their hands than is necessary seems like a bad idea, just in case. And if being led by idiots is the price of democracy, I suppose I can pay it. If I don't like it, I can always emigrate.

Competency tests, however, have in the past been used to block people from voting for no good reason. Someone can be perfectly able to make a reasoned decision about who would make a good candidate, but be unable to read.

I think the current rules -- 18 and over -- should be just fine.

You just know as soon as people are allowed to take the test there'll be a guide on how to pass the test. A test does also mean that people can cheat and abuse the system so that people who shouldn't pass eventually do.

In theory they seem like a good idea, but if any politician ever publicly supported the idea that would probably be the end of their political career.

Personally, I'd like to see competency tests for prospective parents - incorporating all the checks couple have to go through before they are allowed to adopt or foster a child.

Competency tests, however, have in the past been used to block people from voting for no good reason. Someone can be perfectly able to make a reasoned decision about who would make a good candidate, but be unable to read.

I think the current rules -- 18 and over -- should be just fine.

How about either competency OR age? That would work!

For those who do not know what competency tests are, they are tests given to people in order to determine their maturity, ability to reason, their common sense, etc.

To some (probably quite large) extent, measurements like "maturity," "ability to reason," and "common sense" are arbitrary and subjective in nature. The potential for abuse is too great; The other side is always immature, irrational, and stupid. We, on the other hand, are brilliant. Thus, only we should vote. Watching what passes for political "debate," how people automatically draw a line and declare how everyone on that side is "evil," "stupid," "selfish," the "enemy," it should be easy to conclude that such "competency tests" will serve only to disenfranchise and discriminate.

Such tests are illegal, in the United States for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965), exactly because of such abuse occuring in the past.

Actually I like the idea presented in Starship Troopers better. Atleast two years of military service.

Personally, I'd like to see competency tests for prospective parents - incorporating all the checks couple have to go through before they are allowed to adopt or foster a child.

If they failed would they be forced to abort or would the state but the children in fostercare to rot?

If they failed would they be forced to abort or would the state but the children in fostercare to rot?
First offence the kid(s) get put in care. Second offence, the kid(s) are aborted. Third offence, the parents are sterilised (and the kid(s) are aborted).

First offence the kid(s) get put in care. Second offence, the kid(s) are aborted. Third offence, the parents are sterilised (and the kid(s) are aborted).

.... the state forcing an adult to take a operation. That has huge potential for abuse. Even without abuse that is a violation of her rights.

This sounds like a bad idea.

.... the state forcing an adult to take a operation. That has huge potential for abuse.
The state has huge potential for abuse towards the population anyway. All this would be doing is giving them one more way.

The state has huge potential for abuse towards the population anyway. All this would be doing is giving them one more way.

And that makes it right how?

What do you think of them? Do you think they would be a good idea in a democratic society in refrence to voting?

It would not be a society with democratic values - it would be a chauvinist, elitist society where someone has decided what is desirable, and shut out those who do not fit inside that framework.

I despise the very notion and the people who think they are so much better that they can tell who is and who isn't entitled to full rights and equality under the law, and would sabotage this putrid system at any opportunity.

It would not be a society with democratic values - it would be a chauvinist, elitist society where someone has decided what is desirable, and shut out those who do not fit inside that framework.

I despise the very notion and the people who think they are so much better that they can tell who is and who isn't entitled to full rights and equality under the law, and would sabotage this putrid system at any opportunity.

I think I love you... but I'm not sure. The higher ups haven't told me wheter I have the rights/mental capibilities to love yet.

I think I love you... but I'm not sure.

Uncertain love is still love on some level. All forms are accepted. :)

The higher ups haven't told me wheter I have the rights/mental capibilities to love yet.

Watch out! That sounds like dissent. You wouldn't want them to sterilise you and make you part of their, oh, so cosy genocide programme? Oh, did I say genocide? I of course meant "eugenics" which is, oh, so much different and better...

In my opinion, all you should need to vote is your ID. If someone you think is an idiot votes for someone you think is an idiot, then you have no right to have these idiots kept from voting for the person who they think would benefit their country best. If you make voting a privilege and not a right, then you are one step closer to creating an Aristocracy. (though that may be what you want, but that is a whole different topic)

It would not be a society with democratic values - it would be a chauvinist, elitist society where someone has decided what is desirable, and shut out those who do not fit inside that framework.

I despise the very notion and the people who think they are so much better that they can tell who is and who isn't entitled to full rights and equality under the law, and would sabotage this putrid system at any opportunity.

I could not say it more eloquently. Equality under the law really is the most important issue here. I could also never -even if given a thouand years- find a committee I could personally trust with creating the said test.

To be honest, it makes sense. Keeping idiots out of the electoral system would hopefully keep idiots out of Parliament (or foreign equivalent). Keeping dangerous things like cars and guns out of the hands of drooling imbeciles also sounds like an excellent idea for public safety, and allows the rest of us to own and operate such things without so much form-filling and regulation.

On the other hand, I don't want to see this happen. I believe that people do have inalienable rights, such as voting and free speech, and I really wouldn't like to see people deprived of these rights for having below average intelligence. Not to mention that placing competency tests to win rights in the hands of the government leads to horrific potential for abuse. I doubt that they would use the opportunity; a democratic system seems to be a fairly good filter for removing tyrannical lunatics, although some slip through; but placing more power in their hands than is necessary seems like a bad idea, just in case. And if being led by idiots is the price of democracy, I suppose I can pay it. If I don't like it, I can always emigrate.


Perfect answer. I agree 100%

I'm all for so kind of test before thet let you vote. Nothing massivly complicated just a few simple questions before you're allowed to put pen to paper, something along the lines of 'name the leaders of the 3 main parties' and 'who was the home secretary before the dissolution of parliment?'. At the very least it would force prospective voters to pick up a newspaper at least once before they bimbled down to the polling station and it may put a stop to those people who blindly vote along party lines.

I'm also with I V Stalin on the testing for parents thing. All you would need is 20 minutes walking around one of the seedier areas of Manchester to be convinced.

And if you're wondering why I am back yet again, I just had the worst experience possible. Attempting to debate about politics and religion in the middle of an online game. I got kicked out of the server because I didn't agree with the admins opinions on Satanism.

Welcome back. Seriously.

As for competency tests, there are a few questions to which I would like to see decent answers:
1. For what do we test?
2. How do we test for them?
3. Do we disallow adults who would fail from voting?
4. How can we be sure that leaving those undereducated and of average or slightly below average intelligence (or those whom, for whatever reason, have traits disadvantageous to passing the test, traits that may not even be relevant) without representation is necessarily a good thing?

All you would need is 20 minutes walking around one of the seedier areas of Manchester to be convinced.

I used to live near there and I'm not convinced in the least.

Yes, then I can vote. You'd see higher voting rates because young people who want to vote but can't may be competent enough to vote but can't.

I used to live near there and I'm not convinced in the least.

You used to need a licence to have a dog in the UK. How is it that we can have children without?

'name the leaders of the 3 main parties'



What constitutes a "leader?"

Does this concept introduce bias that favors a particualr candidate?

What constitutes a "main party?"

The concept of "main party" potentially constitutes major political bias



The point is that this sort of thing is likely to get really complicated really quick.


...it would force prospective voters to pick up a newspaper at least once before they bimbled down to the polling station and it may put a stop to those people who blindly vote along party lines.


Or adding more requirements will simply add another layer of resistance (and excuses: "I just don't have time") to participation, resulting in lower turnout and greater general apathy. Having less people vote might seem fine and dandy, for whatever reason. However, getting into the habit of cutting off the legitimate channels of political communication is a good way to encourage use of less than legitimate means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_violence).

Interesting idea. Unfortunately it will never happen in a true representative democracy.

Think about the irony of the statement.

I like the idea of keeping the idiots out of the system but I have to ask: who would make this test? How could you be sure it would be free of bias? Remember, everyone has an agenda. Except for me.

What good would a competency test do to help with the electoral process when so few vote? Of those, I suspect most vote strictly on party lines (you?). So how about an entrance exam to indicate the voter knows what the candidates, or even the party for that matter, stand for. That wouldn't work, of course, because even fewer people would turn out for elections.

How can we get more people to the polls that have the most basic knowlege of the people they are voting for? I know that voting on party lines just leads to another group of pawns of the party.

I'm more inclined to make the vote open to 16 and up, or even to all high schoolers, than devising some elaborate "competency test."

Better to enfranchise some who aren't capable of making decent voting decisions than disenfranchise some who are (within reason).

You used to need a licence to have a dog in the UK. How is it that we can have children without?

Because children are not typically considered animals.

I'm more inclined to make the vote open to 16 and up, or even all high schoolers, than devising some elaborate "competency test."

Better to enfranchise some who aren't capable of making decent voting decisions than disenfranchise some who are (within reason).
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/MFT20060310.jpg
This is why don't set the bar at 16. Teens usually aren't too bright.

What constitutes a "leader?"


The guy who has been electer to lead his party, by his party.

Does this concept introduce bias that favors a particualr candidate?


No. It's simply general knowledge you should have when voting.

What constitutes a "main party?"


The 3 main parties are generally accepted to be so as they are the largest.

The concept of "main party" potentially constitutes major political bias



No it doesn't, it is decided by the number of seats they hold in the house.

Or adding more requirements will simply add another layer of resistance (and excuses: "I just don't have time") to participation, resulting in lower turnout and greater general apathy. Having less people vote might seem fine and dandy, for whatever reason. However, getting into the habit of cutting off the legitimate channels of political communication is a good way to encourage use of less than legitimate means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_violence).

I have no problem with this. The shock of having an extreme party elected may galvanise the general public to take a more active role in politics and the safeguards in place ensure that the worst that could happen is we would have 5 years under the control of a party that didn't represent the general population of the country.

Because children are not typically considered animals.

Silly argument. I'm not comparing children to animals. I'm pointing out that an examination of a persons suitability to be a parent would probably be in everyones best interest, especially the childs.

You used to need a licence to have a dog in the UK. How is it that we can have children without?

What standards will they have to live up to? There is just too much room for abuse. What about the "unwanted children". Will you force a woman to abort? Force sterilization? If you are abusing/neglecting the kids take them away. What if one parent is capable but the other isn't?
But the goverment can't step on your rights like that, regardless. And if they can? Racism still exists this can be used against races. Stamp out cultures. Also, children general share their parents point of view you could get rid of ways of thinking. Et voila the perfect system:rolleyes:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/MFT20060310.jpg
This is why don't set the bar at 16. Teens usually aren't too bright.

a cartoon doesn't prove anything. Most teens aren't that stupid and those that aren't probably won't take the time to vote anyway.

Most adults aren't that smart anyway. But in a democracy they still have the right to vote. The problem with it is how stupid people are, however it works better then the alternatives.

Ok. How about this. A board, with no chairman/leader, and representatives from every legitimate political party, organizes every say, year? During the meeting they decide what at that time would be acceptable competency for people to have rights to certain things, such as voting and children-raising, and develop a test to determine competency. In order for the test and compentency rates needed for certain privelages to be passed, there must be a unanimous approval amongst the board members.

Teens usually aren't too bright.

And, at eighteen, something magically happens that makes them capable of making decent voting decisions?

There will definitely be some people enfranchised who shouldn't be*, but there will also be people enfranchised who currently are unjustly being deprived of a basic liberty that they are perfectly capable of exercising.

*Though the notion that anybody with a firm concept of self and a reasonable capability for rational thought "should" be disenfranchised could be challenged on legitimate bases.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/MFT20060310.jpg
This is why don't set the bar at 16. Teens usually aren't too bright.
Note the word USUALLY. There are teens who are bright, and who wish to vote, yet they cannot because of age restrictions.

In order for the test and compentency rates needed for certain privelages to be passed, there must be a unanimous approval amongst the board members.

"Unanimous approval" from "representatives from every legitimate political party" would be beyond impractical.

Furthermore, why should we leave it to the political parties to make these decisions? It might minimize partisan bias, but that doesn't mean that it will maximize wisdom.

What standards will they have to live up to? There is just too much room for abuse. What about the "unwanted children". Will you force a woman to abort? Force sterilization? If you are abusing/neglecting the kids take them away. What if one parent is capable but the other isn't?
But the goverment can't step on your rights like that, regardless. And if they can? Racism still exists this can be used against races. Stamp out cultures. Also, children general share their parents point of view you could get rid of ways of thinking. Et voila the perfect system:rolleyes:

I'm thinking less along the lines of whether he or she will make a good parent and more along the lines of financial stability. It becomes more difficult to corrupt a system testing absolutes than a system based on opinion of suitability. BTW you only have rights because the govt. says you have rights, they can take them away if they want.

Actually I like the idea presented in Starship Troopers better. Atleast two years of military service.

I have to agree with this one as well. For those who have read the book, the basic theory is that those who have served military service would put the needs of the group in front of their own, as they're supposed to do in combat. No idea if it would work out or not, but it sounds promising to me.

I have to agree with this one as well. For those who have read the book, the basic theory is that those who have served military service would put the needs of the group in front of their own, as they're supposed to do in combat. No idea if it would work out or not, but it sounds promising to me.

Putting the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the one sounds dangerously like socialism to me. Not sure the NeoCons on here will approve.

I'm thinking less along the lines of whether he or she will make a good parent and more along the lines of financial stability. It becomes more difficult to corrupt a system testing absolutes than a system based on opinion of suitability.

What do you do to people who break the law? Or to those who have accidental pregnancies?

BTW you only have rights because the govt. says you have rights, they can take them away if they want.

Legal rights are granted by the government, yes, but basic human rights are inherent in our status as human beings with human dignity. Violating someone's right to autonomy over their body is a pretty severe human rights violation, in my personal view; it is one that would have to prevent immense harm to be legitimate.

I'm thinking less along the lines of whether he or she will make a good parent and more along the lines of financial stability.

Discrimination. Where do you draw the line of financial stability. And again, if they break these laws are you going to send the kids to fostercare? That'll still cost you money.

What constitutes a "leader?"

Does this concept introduce bias that favors a particualr candidate?

In countries like Canada or the UK (which I believe Farts is from) each party votes for a Party Leader which is that parties candidate for PM. How does that introduce bias?

What constitutes a "main party?"

The concept of "main party" potentially constitutes major political bias


You could start with the parties that are represented in Parliment. You are quite right about it introducing bias. Changing it to "any three parties" might be better.

The point is that this sort of thing is likely to get really complicated really quick.

True dat.

What do you do to people who break the law? Or to those who have accidental pregnancies?

Honestly? I don't know, it is one of the major sticking points of the whole scheme. I'm starting the think along the lines of the Chinese systems of punishment under the one child rule.

How statist of you. Legal rights are granted by the government, yes, but basic human rights are inherent in our status as human beings with human dignity. Violating someone's right to autonomy over their body is a pretty severe human rights violation, in my personal view, one that would have to prevent immense harm to be legitimate.

Who defines dignity? Parents violate the rights of their children to autonomy over their body all the time, whenever they consent to a medical procedure to child doesn't want.

Honestly? I don't know, it is one of the major sticking points of the whole scheme. I'm starting the think along the lines of the Chinese systems of punishment under the one child rule.

Could you be more specific?

Who defines dignity? Parents violate the rights of their children to autonomy over their body all the time, whenever they consent to a medical procedure to child doesn't want.

But those are children. We tend to assume in our society, rightly or wrongly, that their status as children legitimates the denial of some rights. It is hardly an excuse for denying rights to rational adults.

Could you be more specific?

As far as I'm aware the Chinese use financal disincentives to discourage families having more than one child. The same could be done here except the target would be unlicenced parents.

But those are children. We tend to assume in our society, rightly or wrongly, that their status as children legitimates the denial of some rights. It is hardly an excuse for denying rights to rational adults.

But I thought that

basic human rights are inherent in our status as human beings

:D

As a society we must sometimes curtail the right of some for the benefit of many. It sux but there you go. I don't know where you live but in the UK the rise of teenage pregnancy is putting considerable strain on our welfare system and youth related crime is through the roof. I don't claim that this idea is an ideal solution but I think it would go some way to help relieve the situation.

Actually I like the idea presented in Starship Troopers better. Atleast two years of military service.

The military is an organization designed to train people to kill other people, and many people leave it with serious mental disorders. It also consists of training that takes away your ability to reason for yourself and follow orders from your "superiors". Voting should never be dependant on something like that.

As far as I'm aware the Chinese use financal disincentives to discourage families having more than one child. The same could be done here except the target would be unlicenced parents.



But you said this would be based on financail situations. If they;re already low on cash how do you expet them to pay the extra taxes. You say there is a strain on the welfare system? Well by sucking even more money out of them they'll be looking to you for financail support. So you'll be paying them anyway. Making people pay to be poor won't help. Silly goose.

But you said this would be based on financail situations. If they;re already low on cash how do you expet them to pay the extra taxes. You say there is a strain on the welfare system? Well by sucking even more money out of them they'll be looking to you for financail support. So you'll be paying them anyway. Making people pay to be poor won't help. Silly goose.

No you're right. Withdrawing benefits might make them think twice though.

As far as I'm aware the Chinese use financal disincentives to discourage families having more than one child. The same could be done here except the target would be unlicenced parents.

So you'd punish children who would already be growing up low-income for the crimes of their parents?

But I thought that

To be perfectly honest, that is one of the problems I am having difficulty resolving in my own advocacy of liberty. So please forgive the inconsistency.

I want to claim, simultaneously, that:
1. There is no legitimate moral justification whatsoever for curtailing the liberty of a mentally healthy adult member of society for the purpose of somehow "benefitting" that member;
2. There is a legitimate moral justification for curtailing the liberty of non-adults for precisely that purpose.

The trouble is that mere age distinctions are arbitrary; I have to come up with a relevant moral standard that both justifies (2) without infringing on (1), and I can't do it - at least not a good one.

As a society we must sometimes curtail the right of some for the benefit of many. It sux but there you go.

I agree.

I don't know where you live but in the UK the rise of teenage pregnancy is putting considerable strain on our welfare system

I live in the US. Similar claims are being made here. Why do you think your proposal would solve this problem? Further penalizing people who are already in horrendous circumstances will just cause more harm. It isn't as if most teenage pregnancies are intentional.

and youth related crime is through the roof.

Again, why do you think your proposal would solve this problem?

No you're right.

That's what I was looking for. :cool: *dances*

So you'd punish children who would already be growing up low-income for the crimes of their parents?

Yes. I understand that it seems harsh but I'm back to my good of the many argument.

To be perfectly honest, that is one of the problems I am having difficulty resolving in my own advocacy of liberty. So please forgive the inconsistency.

I want to claim, simultaneously, that:
1. There is no legitimate moral justification whatsoever for curtailing the liberty of a mentally healthy adult member of a society for the purpose of somehow "benefitting" that member;
2. There is a legitimate moral justification for curtailing the liberty of non-adults.

The trouble is that mere age distinctions are arbitrary; I have to come up with a relevant moral standard that both justifies (2) without infringing on (1), and I can't do it - at least not a good one.

I'm in the same boat on that one.

I live in the US. Similar claims are being made here. Why do you think your proposal would solve this problem? Further penalizing people who are already in horrendous circumstances will just cause more harm. It isn't as if most teenage pregnancies are intentional.

No, but if you make the consequences more severe then I would imagine that the instances would go down. This need not be a permanent thing, I'm all in favour of society getting a smack across the face from time to time to remind us of our responsibilities to each other. After all, what better way to reinforce the importance of a right than to take it away for a while.


Again, why do you think your proposal would solve this problem?

In my experience, it seems that most of the dodgy little sods I've deal with through life have come from poor, single parent homes (I say most not all) and then go on to repeat the process. I'm hoping this could break the cycle.

That's what I was looking for. :cool: *dances*

Yuo can't just read one half of the post and ignore the other.

Yuo can't just read one half of the post and ignore the other.

I try to look at the more intelligent of the statements to comment on.

I try to look at the more intelligent of the statements to comment on.

Touche.

Yes. I understand that it seems harsh but I'm back to my good of the many argument.

The problem is that I don't think it will solve anything, at least not without causing unnecessary harm.

Either the financial penalties will be too small as to not be much of a deterrent, and simply be an extra hardship for those already badly off, or they will be large enough to severely threaten the welfare of families who do violate the law, and that's completely unfair to the children.

And, again, what do you do about accidental pregnancies?

No, but if you make the consequences more severe then I would imagine that the instances would go down.

The consequences are pretty severe as they stand. I don't think making them even more severe will be much more of a deterrent. Perhaps better sex education is a preferable way to counteract the problem?

In my experience, it seems that most of the dodgy little sods I've deal with through life have come from poor, single parent homes (I say most not all) and then go on to repeat the process. I'm hoping this could break the cycle.

Some analysts in the US have said that the legalization of abortion in the US is a major cause for the drop in violent crime we've had. So you might have a point here.

Then again, I haven't seen any evidence that it made a considerable difference in poverty rates.

The problem is that I don't think it will solve anything, at least not without causing unnecessary harm.

Either the financial penalties will be too small as to not be much of a deterrent, and simply be an extra hardship for those already badly off, or they will be large enough to severely threaten the welfare of families who do violate the law, and that's completely unfair to the children.

And, again, what do you do about unnecessary pregnancies?

The consequences are pretty severe as they stand. I don't think making them even more severe will be much more of a deterrent. Perhaps better sex education is a preferable way to counteract the problem?

Some analysts in the US have said that the legalization of abortion in the US is a major cause for the drop in violent crime we've had. So you might have a point here.

Then again, I haven't seen any evidence that it made a considerable difference in poverty rates.

I'm kinda making this up as I go at the moment. The general idea is there but the details need work. What I will do is go to bed now and then type up a decent draft proposal for this tomorrow covering the points you've rasied as well as any others I can think of. It'll make for a much more coherant debate when I have a firm understanding of the exact position I'm takeing.

I have to agree with this one as well. For those who have read the book, the basic theory is that those who have served military service would put the needs of the group in front of their own, as they're supposed to do in combat. No idea if it would work out or not, but it sounds promising to me.

In my textbook in Sociology class, in the part about resociolization, bootcamp was used as an example along with the Manson family. What it does is actually strip people down to their core and changes their values. Bootcamp is not as bad as total brainwashing, but it'd be really easy to control voter's political values if everyone had to serve to become a citizen.

I don't know; I may be wrong, but the idea in Starship Troopers has always made me feel very wary.

In countries like Canada or the UK (which I believe Farts is from) each party votes for a Party Leader which is that parties candidate for PM. How does that introduce bias?


A similar conception of "party leader" doesn't really exist in the United States (where I'm from); the nearest thing being the sitting president or the party's candidate therefore. In which case, "party leader" is directly tied to the occupancy of a particular office. I would consider it likely that the individuals that are required to be known would also tend to be those individuals who have a seat to defend, and want to get their name seen in order to collect votes. Thus, the "competency test" becomes campaign literature.

The guy who has been electer to lead his party, by his party.

...

No it doesn't, it is decided by the number of seats they hold in the house.


This proposed test seems to assume the existance of a particular electoral system.


The 3 main parties are generally accepted to be so as they are the largest.


Who decides what is generally accepted? (There are at least 4 active parties nationwide here in the United States, however, it is only "generally accepted" that two matter. Those two also have a record of promoting ballot access and debate rules and regulations that make sure that only two are "generally accepted.")



I have no problem with this. The shock of having an extreme party elected may galvanise the general public to take a more active role in politics and the safeguards in place ensure that the worst that could happen is we would have 5 years under the control of a party that didn't represent the general population of the country.

So long as the "extreme" party decides it is going to continue to obey said safeguards. This is not necessarily a safe assumption, especially when one upsets the electoral system in such a radical manner.

I'm pointing out that an examination of a persons suitability to be a parent would probably be in everyones best interest, especially the childs.


Well, we still have the same problem as with a voting test: as determined by who, by what objective standard?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/MFT20060310.jpg
This is why don't set the bar at 16. Teens usually aren't too bright.

The reason why "teens usually aren't too bright," as pointed out by the comic above, is because the adults charged with educating them have failed miserably. Fault is not placed with the teen. Fault belongs to the "mature and responsible" segment of the population which has failed them.

At any rate, the statement "teens usually aren't too bright" amounts to nothing more than use of an arbitrary and involuntary characteristic to discriminate in a similar manner as skin color or gender. Those who invoke it know that they will always be older than those against whom it is invoked, therefore they think that appeal to age is a inescapable and absolute victory. It has been my experience, however, that appeal to age is generally invoked when I have successfully backed the old fart into a corner which he cannot escape without some irrational logic squirming. That the young also tend to fall for such bogus tactics only makes it that much more infuriating. Yes, having experience in a very specific activity might lend more weight to one's own opinons or ideas. However, to claim superiority over an incredibly expansive, arbitrary, and subjective arena as political philosophy or life in general based simply on age is completely absurd.

Even so, what do people expect if they continue to go around declaring that young people are stupid because of a trait that cannot be helped? Well, people expect me to be stupid because I'm young, I cannot immediately stop being young, so in the meantime I might as well be stupid. People should stop complaining about the young being disinterested and stupid; they've gotten exactly what they expect and desire, have they not? (this essentially being part of the message conveyed by the comic reference)

...





:mad:

:(


</rant>

What do you think of them? Do you think they would be a good idea in a democratic society in refrence to voting?

For those who do not know what competency tests are, they are tests given to people in order to determine their maturity, ability to reason, their common sense, etc. Depending on how they do, they will be given privelages, such as the ability to vote, to drive, to own a gun, and other such thing, no matter the age. As long as they reach the score required to have a privelage, they are allowed the privelages.

Personally, I think compentency tests would be an excellent idea. That way we have the people who are normally too young to have privelages such as voting but tend to be more mature and have more common sense than most adults allowed to vote, and have the people who are old enough to vote but are less mature and have less common sense than most teenagers not allowed to vote.

And if you're wondering why I am back yet again, I just had the worst experience possible. Attempting to debate about politics and religion in the middle of an online game. I got kicked out of the server because I didn't agree with the admins opinions on Satanism.

Now then, OPINIONS PEOPLE!

It's been tried in one form or another. It's too open to abuse. For instance, in the South for a very long time, competency tests, in the form of literacy tests, were used to bar blacks from voting. Just for that reason, I would be against them.

I have to agree with this one as well. For those who have read the book, the basic theory is that those who have served military service would put the needs of the group in front of their own, as they're supposed to do in combat. No idea if it would work out or not, but it sounds promising to me.

The basic theory behind the Terran Federation amounts to nothing more than that an author needed a literary vehicle that would facilitate the exploration of the relationship between liberty and responsibility. As such, the service requirement (which is not necessarily limited to military service; at least, it cannot be so limited and still satisfy the Terran Federation's constitutional requirement that all citizens have the right to render service, presumably including those physically incapable of military service) serves simply to propose the idea that those who would claim coercive power over society (direction of government via the vote) should also show that they are willing to allow society equal power over their own liberty. Liberty and responsibility for that liberty. Of course, Heinlein, being former military, used that which was most familiar to him for this exploration. However, such an arangement is hardly the only one possible.

At any rate, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, with its criticism and parody of the democratic process as well as its celebration of the individual, seems to contradict the idea that Heinlein promoted putting the "needs of the group in front of" one's own.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/MFT20060310.jpg
This is why don't set the bar at 16. Teens usually aren't too bright.

I've graduated High School, am currently going for a Chemistry degree in an honors program at a university, and can point out all of NA and Europe on a map, as well as most of Asia (including all the middle east), most of south america, but very little of Africa.

I can also describe the political systems of most (larger) countries in the world, as well as political ideologies ranging from libertarianism to communism. Ask me about any modern issue and I can probably describe it with a respectable amount of detail. Ask me about various politicians (relevant to me, I have no idea who the senators in north dakota are) in my country and I can tell you why, or why not I would support them for reelection.

In addition to all this I can't vote until 2007. But hey, I cant possibly be competant.

The military is an organization designed to train people to kill other people, and many people leave it with serious mental disorders. It also consists of training that takes away your ability to reason for yourself and follow orders from your "superiors". Voting should never be dependant on something like that.

Tell that to the Israelis. (Best example of a well functioning democracy with an informed public and high voter turnout that requires military service that I can readily think of. I don't think theres a man alive who can say they are less democratic than any other country)

===========================

I would support some kind of competancy tests for voters, but we also need voter turnout to be higher. Its at record lows and voter apathy is increasing every year from the lack of competancy seen by either of the two major parties in this republic of ours. More education on basic politcal reasoning should be made availiable in addition to knowledge of basic constitutional law to middle school children and older who will be voting sooner than they think. But of course, its hard to teach that sort of thing without bias.

Edit: I would like to add there is something of a competancy test already: If you are stupid enough to be caught comitting a felony, you cant vote.

This proposed test seems to assume the existance of a particular electoral system.

Well yes, I'm from the UK so I'm looking at this from a British perspective. I'm sure the questions can be adapted to meet the needs of different electoral systems.

Who decides what is generally accepted? (There are at least 4 active parties nationwide here in the United States, however, it is only "generally accepted" that two matter. Those two also have a record of promoting ballot access and debate rules and regulations that make sure that only two are "generally accepted.")

In the UK there are 3 main parties. They are Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. This is a fact. All others are fringe parties with little to no political power.

Edit: The inclusion of other would make the whole thing unweildy, there are over 300 political parties registered in the UK.

So long as the "extreme" party decides it is going to continue to obey said safeguards. This is not necessarily a safe assumption, especially when one upsets the electoral system in such a radical manner.

Those safeguards exist whether the current party in power follows them or not. Again, I'm am using the UKs' system for my discussion.

I've graduated High School, am currently going for a Chemistry degree in an honors program at a university, and can point out all of NA and Europe on a map, as well as most of Asia (including all the middle east), most of south america, but very little of Africa.

I can also describe the political systems of most (larger) countries in the world, as well as political ideologies ranging from libertarianism to communism. Ask me about any modern issue and I can probably describe it with a respectable amount of detail. Ask me about various politicians (relevant to me, I have no idea who the senators in north dakota are) in my country and I can tell you why, or why not I would support them for reelection.

In addition to all this I can't vote until 2007. But hey, I cant possibly be competant.


I kind of know how you feel. I passed the AP Human Geography exam and got A's all through the course back in my freshman year of high school, and I beat everyone in the class on a pop map quiz. I'm taking six college-level courses and one high school honors-level course next year. But I'm not competent enough to vote until 2008, apparently.

To be perfectly honest, that is one of the problems I am having difficulty resolving in my own advocacy of liberty. So please forgive the inconsistency.

I want to claim, simultaneously, that:
1. There is no legitimate moral justification whatsoever for curtailing the liberty of a mentally healthy adult member of society for the purpose of somehow "benefitting" that member;
2. There is a legitimate moral justification for curtailing the liberty of non-adults for precisely that purpose.

The trouble is that mere age distinctions are arbitrary; I have to come up with a relevant moral standard that both justifies (2) without infringing on (1), and I can't do it - at least not a good one.

If it helps, you can think of children as not being mentally healthy. That's how most people reconsile that paradox. The consider childhood like a disease we all get over after a while.

Or, if you want to be intelectually honest about it, the fact is that there's no moral justification for curtailing the liberty of a knowledgable, compotent child for the purpose of "benefitting" that child. (Child being any person who is under the age of adulthood in the juristiction we're talking about.)

A compotency test would really be the only way to remove arbitrary age distinctions and still have children denied their liberty on the grounds that they can't handle freedon, but as others have said, such tests can lead to discrimination as over 18s are not granted their full rights because the tests are discriminatory.

How about this:
We keep all the arbitrary age lines where they are. We make that a guarenteed, you get your rights for sure at that age. Then, we introduce tests of the sort we're talking about for anyone who wants to take them and win their rights earlier. After a few years of this, we have a nonarbitrary indicator if when the majority of people have been able to pass these tests, and we can adjust our arbitrary ages of adulthood appropriately. We still leave the tests in place so those who mature early can take their tests and get their rights.

How does that sound?

How about this:
We keep all the arbitrary age lines where they are. We make that a guarenteed, you get your rights for sure at that age. Then, we introduce tests of the sort we're talking about for anyone who wants to take them and win their rights earlier. After a few years of this, we have a nonarbitrary indicator if when the majority of people have been able to pass these tests, and we can adjust our arbitrary ages of adulthood appropriately. We still leave the tests in place so those who mature early can take their tests and get their rights.

How does that sound?

That sounds like a good plan. That way no adults would have their rights removed, and people my age who are ready to have voting rights can take the test. Because, honestly, at my age, some of my classmates seem mature enough to be ready, and some really don't.