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.

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.

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