CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
9
Yes No
Debate Score:19
Arguments:20
Total Votes:23
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (9)
 
 No (8)

Debate Creator

Nomenclature(1296) pic



Should Someone With No Understanding Of Politics Be Allowed To Vote?

And would testing the political knowledge of voters before they are allowed to vote be a good idea?

Yes

Side Score: 10
VS.

No

Side Score: 9

To one party, all supporters of other parties (or Independents) clearly are not as well-versed in politics as the voters of that party.

So, at any time that this comes to be, whichever party the "third party" examining board which decides who can and cannot vote supports will end up only allowing majority of people through who show clear political preference for that party in their answers.

If you say 'prove it', well how can I prove it when it hasn't been done yet?

Side: Yes
1 point

There's no such parameter to measure one's understanding of politics. Even though i agree that people needs to be more educated regarding politics, I do not buy this argument of scrutinising people based on their understanding of politics.

Side: Yes
2 points

If we are ever going to break away from the tribal voting tradition it is vital that those being made eligible to vote should have not only a knowledge of politics but the ability and concern to read and analyze the manifesto of the parting vying for election.

I'm certain there are 10s of 1000s of people who would, unknowingly cast their traditional vote for a party who stated in their 'declarations of intent' that they would start WW3 if elected.

Side: No
xMathFanx(1575) Clarified
1 point

@Antrim

If we are ever going to break away from the tribal voting tradition it is vital that those being made eligible to vote should have not only a knowledge of politics but the ability and concern to read and analyze the manifesto of the parting vying for election.

Yes--and this is approaching a very 'soft' form of Meritocracy. Those who generally disagree with even basic requirements/pre-cautions such as this tend to be ones who are unwilling to work for their lot (i.e. have earned no merit, have no intention upon doing so, and still believe they deserve the same respect as those who have worked--it is an absurdity really).

Open Democracy is a massive subsidy to the ignorant, stupid, & lazy at the expense of the ambitious, educated, intelligent; ultimately, this damages/weighs down the progression of the entire society/humanity as well as compromises the health of the system

Side: Yes
kris1(2) Disputed
1 point

your argument are sane in one way but at the same time can you suggest me how someone could figure out how many people posses this intent.

The assertion you're making is actually the basic idea of democracy presuming that if an insane fellow votes for war, thousands will vote for peace and that's how democracy works.

Side: Yes

I believe it is irrational to let these people vote, for the simple reason that we don't let non-doctors make medical decisions or non-soldiers make military decisions.

I don't propose anything even comparable to medical training of course, but I would definitely like to see some sort of basic testing regarding a person's understanding of politics. If people vote a certain way because of a misunderstanding of some kind, then is it not society's responsibility to correct that misunderstanding? If you believe not, then why is it society's responsibility to give them a vote?

Side: No
Amarel(3619) Disputed Banned
1 point

Do we allow non-doctors to choose their doctor? Of course we do. If you provided an honest test to politicians in office, you would find they are politically literate or their advisers are politically literate. A people must be able to hire the political specialists to represent them in areas they do not themselves understand. When the specialists can determine who gets to hire them, the pace of the advance of corruption is sure to increase.

Rather than making the role of politicians so important that only those deemed wise enough are allowed to vote, we should reduce the role of politics in our lives, thus reducing the damage done by an ignorant voting block.

Side: Yes
0 points

Do we allow non-doctors to choose their doctor? Of course we do.

OK, that's true.

If you provided an honest test to politicians in office, you would find they are politically literate or their advisers are politically literate.

1) I was very clear that I am talking about the political literacy of voters, not the political literacy of politicians.

2) Hitler was politically literate. That doesn't mean voting for him was a good idea.

A people must be able to hire the political specialists to represent them in areas they do not themselves understand.

But clearly they must be literate enough to know who is going to best represent them in the first place, otherwise your statement contradicts itself.

Side: No
1 point

That would be a good idea; maybe not an ewam but some sort of mandatory "class" for voters wich would explain the basics of politics: how a law is voted, hierarchy etc

Side: No
xMathFanx(1575) Clarified
1 point

@Nomenclature

Should Someone With No Understanding Of Politics Be Allowed To Vote?

I believe it is irrational to let these people vote, for the simple reason that we don't let non-doctors make medical decisions or non-soldiers make military decisions.

Interesting.

We see, if the 'buzz-word(s)' are not applied, then you agree with the principle of Meritocracy. Then, as I already predicted/maintained, you are very confused about your own views

Side: Yes
0 points

Hello N:

In this great country of ours, citizens HAVE rights.. They don't have 'em because they're smart.. They don't have 'em because they're white.. They don't have 'em because they're men. They have then because they're CITIZENS.

excon

Side: No

You are arguing the other side than what you posted, excon.

Side: No
excon(8030) Clarified
1 point

Hello GL:

I might have.. Sometimes I mix up the clarify, dispute and support buttons.. Where did I do that?

You're NOT confused about my position, are you?? If so, let me be clear.. I'm against ANY kind of voter suppression.. I ALWAYS have been, and I ALWAYS will be.

excon

Side: Yes
0 points

In this great country of ours, citizens HAVE rights.. They don't have 'em because they're smart.. They don't have 'em because they're white.. They don't have 'em because they're men. They have then because they're CITIZENS.

That is literally the argument of a spoiled child. I don't care if it destroys the world: I WANT IT!!

Side: Yes
excon(8030) Disputed
0 points

That is literally the argument of a spoiled child. I don't care if it destroys the world: I WANT IT!!

Hello again, N:

YES.. These are my RIGHTS, and I WANT them.. I FOUGHT for them.. I spilled my BLOOD for them. And, I DEMAND that I get to EXERCISE them.. You can call that whatever you like.. I call it being a patriotic American.

Your idea is VOTER SUPPRESSION pure and simple.. It's RIGHT WING as hell, and I frankly can't believe that you support it.. But, you never cease to surprise me.

excon

Side: No