Bifurcations (PRO)"To begin this debate I will define a current affairs test and explain how a voting system would work under this model then I will prove the legitimacy and necessity of such a system.
1. Definitions and Model
To begin with everyone who is eligible to vote would get a MINIMUM of 1 vote. When the test is taken the score achieved will be added to the single vote. For example if someone scores 50% in the current affairs test they would have 1.5 votes. This means that any eligible voter can have between one and two votes. The test would consist of straight forward general knowledge questions on current voting issues. For example where on this map is Syria, or how much of the Government's budget is spent on welfare each year. These questions would be decided upon by a non-partisan committee. The test would be part of the election process and take place about a month before voting day. It would be offered and officiated in a similar manner to the vote itself.
2. Necessity of Model (balance of harms to single vote system)
One of the biggest issues in both the UK and the US with politicians campaigning is that it is very easy for them to twist and manipulate truths that too many people just take at face value. We cannot hope to vote on an effective solution if we don't have the correct information about what the issue is. The test score giving more votes incentivises people to read independent sources to get up to date and accurate information. This also incentivises people to scrutinise what politicians claim during campaigns as "truth facts". This is necessary to break through media driven narratives such as "EU migrants come to the UK for benefits" when in fact there is only a small amount of Government money actually used on benefits. A quote from The Guardian shows this: "EU migrants make up only a small proportion of the overall benefits caseload. They accounted for 2.5% of benefits the DWP administered in 2014 - mostly out-of-work benefits - in 2014". When facts like this are clearer it is much easier to tackle beliefs like EU migration is bad for the UK because migrants only come over for the benefits. This then makes it harder for politicians who use fear tactics and exaggeration during campaigns to win votes on policies that are based in lies. Votes are important to the population and politicians who run campaigns like this are damaging the credibility of political campaigns in general making people more disillusioned with the politics of their country.
3. Legitimacy of Model
First of all it has to be stressed again that this model does not deprive people of votes. Secondly it has to be stressed that voting even though it is an individual act has third party harms. For example if a politician campaigned on "most muslims are terrorists and I can stop them" and they were elected by the population the people who voted for that policy have some level of responsibility to any Muslim that is unfairly treated due to this policy. We have a duty to find out what is factually correct before we vote based on lies because it will not just affect ourselves but everyone else in that country. That means that it is legitimate to give people who have more current general knowledge a lager weighted vote because that knowledge means you are less likely to vote in politicians running campaigns on lies and half truths. Finally this test does not inherently change influence or change someones political leaning. Two different people with the same facts presented might solve the problem using left or right wing politics it just depends on the person. The test itself does not influence the vote directly but it does give people another incentive to fact check and it gives credit to those who have a basic understanding of the current situation.
For the reasons that I believe this policy to be legitimate and necessary I think it should be proposed. I look forward to hearing my opponents thoughts.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-19 09:36:03
| Speak Round