I don't see why a "civics" test needs to be about the
test of the constitution or even about how the government
works at all. It could be stuff like1 "Where
does the Republican Party stand on taxation?" "What party
is Harry Browne?" "Which party wants to extend the Clean
Air Act to cover cow flatulence?"
A coworker (a Libertarian, for reference), suggests that
the first thing he'd like to see is: on the ballot, no
parties are listed. You'd just have the names, and you'd
just have to know who the people you wanted to vote
for were. It sounds like a reasonable first step to me.
1 I'm just pulling these examples out of
my... head. yeah, out of my head. | [reply] |
That would be a better (more practical) civics test I agree,
but who would create it? That would be almost as big a
battle as the election I'm sure. It's much worse up here than
in the U.S. where there are 5 main parties (depending...)
and they all have slightly different views on key issues,
to the point that they are spending more time on trying
to define their positions than defend them. Asking Joe Public
what a given party's position and getting an answer you (who?)
could grade would be very difficult indeed.
I'd also have to disagree with your friend, though I see the
point I think. Maybe we're running into fundamental difference
between our systems of government, but what an individual
candidate thinks on anything beyond very local issues is
almost meaningless in the face of his/her party position, as
members are all expected to vote with the party in the House. Consequently,
knowing your member's name is fairly pointless, but knowing
their party's platform is important. There is a move up here
to get party logos on the ballot to make the distinction
even clearer.
| [reply] |
Actually, it seems to me that systems have evolved differently. In a system like that of the US, the legislator's staying in her seat is *not* directly tied to how the legislature votes on any particular issue. In Brit-style parliamentary democracies, lose the wrong vote in the parliament and it's time for a new election. That difference has the effect of making it *easier* to "break party lines" in the US and "vote your conscience" (or your personal gain, if you're Machiavellian enough).
Philosophy can be made out of anything. Or less -- Jerry A. Fodor
| [reply] |
