An informed electorate

[Darth Wong]

Actually, many of the most long-lasting governments in world history have been dictatorial.

I think I may have been mis-using the term "government". We talk about things like the "Blair government", which strictly speaking would last no more than 5 years or thereabouts. I meant to refer to the institutions of government, things like "the British system of government by a (democratic) Constitutional Monarchy" which has lasted since sixteen-hundred-whatever-it-was.

What examples of long-lasting dictatorships do you have, BTW?

Dynastic China. Imperial Rome. Hell, even the Pharoahs easily lasted much longer than any of the present-day systems of democracy.

[The Third Man]

I imagine a student of political science might argue whether they qualify as continuous dictatorships, but I'm not one so I won't.

Instead I'll just summarise my thoughts so far: Any improved "quality of decision" gained by restricting suffrage is offset by more problematic relationships between government/governed and voters/non-voters because a larger section of the citizenry perceives itself as excluded from participation.

I'm sure InnerBrat will be along shortly to mention the suffragettes, who provide a very nice example of the kinds of problematic relationships I'm talking about. At that time in history restricted suffrage got so problematic that excluded members of society were driven to publicly throwing themselves under race-horses.

[Andrew J.]

I have, within the last couple months, come up with the theory that a great deal of the things any government does are attempts to prevent revolutions, or revolutionary moods and environments. Welfare, social services, universal suffrage, and more.

Suddenly creating a disenfranchised underclass who probably weren't too well off beforehand anyway (the stupid) isn't kosher iwth that. Should they be voting? In an ideal world, no. Do we want them rioting in the streets? Hell no.

[Skelron]

And you figure that by making the consequences of ignorance more obvious and immediate, they will be EVEN LESS motivated to learn?
Most teenagers CAN'T vote, moron. You have to be at least 18 to vote, which freezes out the 13-17 age bracket already. And the ability to conect cause and effect is hardly a complex long-range visualization process.

Ah yes because OBVIOUSLY I thought Teenagers could vote I mean I was saying that at school where these Skills would be learnt to sit this test Teenagers in these situations generally don't pay attention. I mean Wongs KEEN cutting and Biting Logic here was on track I see

Now let us re-examine what was being said at School the best chance to learn these skills a large percentage of the Underclass will feel that there is little point paying attention and learning, coupled with the typical emphasis teenagers put on schooling, (Where paying attention and being clever can be frowned upon) Clearly as you yourself have pointed out Teenagers don't vote so erm this isn't an immediate or apparent result.

Also your little argument fails on another score, Cause and Effect, lets see cause and effect of not paying attention at school and failing to get an education... Likely to not get a job when you leave school, and maybe never to get one. Has this altered the perceptions and attidudes of these people no, and they live with this Cause and effect everyday. So why not, because they feel the state and the world around them simply dosn't care, a growing feeling of seperation exists, of course if when they leave school they find they cannot vote while others the same age can this feeling of seperation will only increase because THEY are Seperated and discriminated against. The Term Underclass that has been a dodgy one in the eyes of most commentators one they are not truely happy with will become fixed and I can well imagine in such a society, (For it will not be a democracy as we know them today although it may well still be called one, but whats a name?) that they will be the very defination of an Underclass... but hell as long as those that meet Mr Wongs criteria for acceptable voters who cares?

Right, it's quite simple, so why the fear-mongering?
Irrelevant; you are confusing best practices with structural workings.

Hell understanding how the British Government works is an A-Level to Degree Subject

Contents of a Text Book on the British Government

So clearly unless the test is going to only deal with surface things that really would make little differance then it won't be a 'Simple' test at all and claims that it will be are ignorent and unjustified.

So you said earlier it's simple, now you say it's horribly complicated? Puh-lease. If anybody can walk into a public library and learn it, the masses are NOT being frozen out.

[/Quote]

Ah yes Keen cutting Logic, the keen cutting logic that does not seem to understand that when one says

So clearly unless the test is going to only deal with surface things that really would make little differance then it won't be a 'Simple' test at all

Please if your going to counter my points at least actually Counter my Points...

Now I will deal with the Libary Issua at the end of the Post, at the moment I am just trying to highlight a few of your mistakes as they occur.

Oh look, more fear-mongering rhetoric, supported only by your say-so!

Not that so far your has been any different you insist the Test would only need to cover things that can be learnt in the Libary yet have provided no evidence of this, only that you say it would be so, so it is. You said Cause and Effect would be immediatly obvious on this matter, yet have not shown that in school it would be so, and in fact the simple evidence is against you on the matter, yet you supported this statement on your simple say so.

What then is my evidence for this well, for a start I find the concept scary, so it is scary at least to one person. It's a qualifier to the vote it moves away from a simple age qualifier to a set of conditions that must be met, a 'You Must this Tall' testof course the people who set this test would need to be employed by the state, and so it is the state that decides who can and cannot vote! My God's dosn't that concept scare you, rather than have an automatic right when you arrive at a certain point in your life you have a test to decide if you can vote... You Have a test set by the state. It's a system open for abuse, oh sure I am not going to say it would be abused, or that abuse is likely but the potential abuse is high, for what the chance to remove a small group of voters.

False analogy, idiot. No one is forcing anyone to join the military; all you have to do is either pay attention in school or walk into a fucking public library and do a bit of reading, for fuck's sake. Anyone too goddamned lazy to do that shouldn't be voting.
You have only demonstrated that more people should study logic, since you obviously didn't. This is a "limited franchise" where ANYONE can voluntarily get franchise with no real personal sacrifice whatsoever.

Ahh and now we get down to the simple matter...

Okay firstly I would like to know a little more what you forsee would be on this Test, Tell me Wong, what would you be looking for here. Logic skills? knowledge of how the governemnt works, both? How hard would it be to pass the test, would you have to show a surface passing understanding, on akin to Britain uses a First past the post system, we have a constitutional monarch who has 3 rights... Etc Etc.

Or would you have to show an understanding of the various Subcommitees, traditions, layers of law. (For instance Common Law, Legislative Law, and decisions of Judges) Would you have to know the various traditions that effect (Again using UK as an Example) The relationship in legislative powers between the House of Lords and House of Commons. For examplke when a bill rejected by the House of Lords would actually fail for real? Or would you only have to say the House of Lords cannot reject a Bill from the commons that has been sent to it twice before. (Which is true unless special circumstances intervene.)

Etc basically what are you thinking is needed to be tested for, because if all your testing for is the very surface skills then by all means your libary self taught argument holds up... Otherwise your talking out your ass. (A Quick test, when can the House of Lords reject a Bill and throw it out of the whole legislative process? To make it a little more clear, I am talking about Government Bills here not private Members Bills)