Getting published 2
Syntax corner
Getting published
The British Invasion
Salvador
The quality of sanity is not strained
Going round in circles
Where do you hide your money?
For film buffs
SteamboatsRule by votemeter 2
In the first part, it was mooted that we could, today, easily move to voting from home via votemeter and that parliament becomes a bureaucratic executive for the legislation coming out of the votemeters.
They would still propose legislation arising from PMBs from the voting chamber but that legislation would be voted on directly from home by registered Electors.
To be an Elector, there are two stipulations – firstly, that you are at that time a registered voter in the country under the same criteria as currently and secondly, that you pass the exam, as it is set at that time.
The test – setting the questions
The difficulty is in the formulation of the questions and that would be the subject of hot debate. As the initial questions would be the subject of a poll and would be set by “experts” from three universities, most like and as those “experts” are Marxist, most like, then the questions could well be skewed.
If, however, reps from a cross-section of professions were to set the proposed questions, they could have the raging battle first and would be obliged to consider the public’s suggestions not unlike in flag design competitions but needing to explain why they rejected certain questions.
It could be further enhanced by only public suggestions agreed by three or more currently registered voters would be considered.
Anyway, once these are thrashed out, the initial set would be put and registered voters invited to go to their local council offices and take the test.
After a quota of, say, 20% of voters had passed the test, then the initial votemeters would be available at major outlets and you’d need to produce your certificate or electronic confirmation from the government to buy the set.
Now the parliamentary committee, association, whatever, puts the set of questions up for editing and the new voters can tweak the list. The old set of questions runs for six months and at the end of that time, the new set is put in place for the period of one year.
Thereafter, the questions, which are up for review all year round, are altered once a year to reflect the new voting over the past year across the country.
Thus the test is slowly honed and the people educated at the same time.
Parliamentary structure and electoral terms
The trick in all of these changes is to make the bureaucratic changeover dovetail more nicely and not to throw people out of work. Public sector employees have ample time to retrain into other professions and indeed are given a five year grace period that if a job comes up they’re interested in, then they must automatically go to interview stage with that employer.
Beyond that, merit takes over as the criterion.
By now, we have a new relationship with the EU, the bad legislation of 1997 – 2009 is rolled back, more or less, such as wheelie bin crime and other inanities, the police are now local, as mentioned in part one and all of that has taken place.
Parliament now consists of the same number of MPs but they are now MPAs – members of the parliamentary assembly and directly preselected by people via council offices, not of any party unless they choose to stipulate that on the form but their former party, if any, is on the form.
Voting is not on one day but within a period of time at the local council offices, should registered voters care to attend.
There is a new method of recall in place, based on the American system.
On a stipulated day, total votes for each candidate within the constituency to that date are tabulated and published, although the progressive tallies, like church appeal boards, are always available to peruse.
Each constituency returns three people but the constituencies are larger and fewer so the council offices mentioned as the venues would be those in the larger towns. It still doesn’t alter the suffrage of those from outlying areas but does mean they’d need to travel further, unfortunately.
Filed under: Politics & economics
Interesting James. Now need to print off (yes, lets not consider the environment) part 1 and 2 and study in depth.
Peter Cook sorted this idea 39 years ago:
Taking a subversive look at the road to political success, the film lampoons politicians and the suspiciously ambitious as Rimmer manipulates, cheats and murders his way to the top of his profession and eventually to the head of all government: President of Great Britain. His ‘charisma-heavy’, ‘policy-light’ style of leadership, through relentless opinion polls, referenda and underhand electoral practices, somehow wins the hearts of the nation – at the expense of the country.
http://www.moviemail-online.co.uk/film/dvd/The-Rise-and-Rise-of-Michael-Rimmer/
It’s a worthy idea, but I can’t see our political class going for it, not without the obligatory revolution first complete with hangings etc.
Yes, I’m not particularly interested in our political class in this. It is clearly after they’ve been dealt with.
You still haven’t mentioned what sort of questions you are thinking of?
Will they be varied giving everyone a chance to have some knowledge in at least some of the areas?
Lord T
November 24, 2009 at 14:15 (Edit)
James,
And would the tests be about real world stuff like balancing a chequebook or just how to make sure that commas were in the right place. The questions should reflect real world issues and not just a list of stupid questions like the citizenship one. It should have relevance to what is going on and show an understanding that when you vote for X then Y will be the payment. Not like California where they can vote for low taxes but big state benefits.
It would be interesting seeing what you think should be in such a test.
James Higham
November 24, 2009 at 16:30 (Edit)
This is too big a topic – this will be part three.
You don’t expect me to remember the numbers of posts at this time of night do you
I think there should be questions if there are any which identified whether people understood what the hell was going on- so what does inflation mean? (Answer an estimate of the percentage increase in prices) or what is the difference between relative and absolute poverty or describe the ideas of John Maynard Keynes or Karl Marx or another important modern analyst of politics like Hayek and you should test them on how well they understand the macro level of politics. One of the things I’m more and more aware of is how distinct the field of politics is from the field of policy and its not just about power but also about the degree of understanding and information from the media out there.
Incidentally how would you deal with the issue of the majority being ignorant James (if they were), if they were would they have the right to throw out the knowledgable minority or would they have to acquire knowledge that some of them don’t want to do so?
I’m looking at the difference between someone who, when you ask, “Who wrote Hamlet?” answers, “Huh?” and someone who answers, “Shakespeare,” rather than the difference between someone who answers “the existentialists” rather than “phenomenologists” when you ask, “Which is the more pervasive philosophy in world history?”
We needn’t take extremes and mock the idea of having a test. While political tests such as the Labour citizenship simply reflect the state of mind of Brownians, there are many entry tests to institutions which are rational and probing but not beyond a reasonable level. My entry test to the civil service [I understand it is a joke now] was quite searching and yet not impossible.
The aim of the voting test is not political – it’s to check whether there is any knowledge base at all about this country’s past or whether it is only about Posh and Becks.
“The aim of the voting test is not political – it’s to check whether there is any knowledge base at all about this country’s past or whether it is only about Posh and Becks.”
Now we’re getting there. Instead of drawing arbitrary lines between voters and non-voters, it would be better to address the political and anti-historical agenda in schools, and the lamentable state of the Press and broadcast media (ignorantification at the tabloid end, sciolism at the broadsheet end).
I’m not mocking the test at all James! Its an interesting idea and one that deserves thinking about- that there are basic qualifications for voting beyond just being lucky enough to be born here. I’m not sure what I think about it but its definitely something worth thinking about.
What I’d like you to expand on is what you would do if your test excluded the majority- that’s when it might become politically difficult for the test to survive.
I am genuinely not mocking you at all!