Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   
Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

Is Democracy operative and best for India? (Page 3)

Roadrunnerz Goldie
Roadrunnerz
Roadrunnerz

Joined: 09 August 2008
Posts: 1723

Posted: 20 January 2011 at 6:09am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

How about this:-
1. Conduct an aptitude test at the age of 18 and only those candidates who obtain above 50% marks will be eligible for voting rights
2. Put a condition that those candidates who obtained voting rights can vote only after they have started working and are paying taxes (i.e. earning equal to or more than the taxable income)

@ 1- How does one judge on the basis of an aptitude score? A person can have different apptitudes. How would aptitude for one thing be considered better or superior to the other?
@ 2- Who will ensure work/jobs to those who have the aptitude? If jobs are not ensured even to the educated youth how can they be expected to be paying taxes?

souro Moderator
souro
souro

Joined: 27 January 2007
Posts: 14419

Posted: 20 January 2011 at 6:18am | IP Logged
Originally posted by crazy_sunny

Originally posted by souro

How about this:-
1. Conduct an aptitude test at the age of 18 and only those candidates who obtain above 50% marks will be eligible for voting rights
2. Put a condition that those candidates who obtained voting rights can vote only after they have started working and are paying taxes (i.e. earning equal to or more than the taxable income)

@ 1- How does one judge on the basis of an aptitude score? A person can have different apptitudes. How would aptitude for one thing be considered better or superior to the other?
@ 2- Who will ensure work/jobs to those who have the aptitude? If jobs are not ensured even to the educated youth how can they be expected to be paying taxes?

Tests like IQ tests are usually standardised, something like that can be used.
I'm not saying that anyone will ensure that they will get jobs. I said that they should be allowed to vote only if they are working and earning enough to pay taxes.

Roadrunnerz Goldie
Roadrunnerz
Roadrunnerz

Joined: 09 August 2008
Posts: 1723

Posted: 20 January 2011 at 6:23am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by crazy_sunny

Originally posted by souro

How about this:-
1. Conduct an aptitude test at the age of 18 and only those candidates who obtain above 50% marks will be eligible for voting rights
2. Put a condition that those candidates who obtained voting rights can vote only after they have started working and are paying taxes (i.e. earning equal to or more than the taxable income)

@ 1- How does one judge on the basis of an aptitude score? A person can have different apptitudes. How would aptitude for one thing be considered better or superior to the other?
@ 2- Who will ensure work/jobs to those who have the aptitude? If jobs are not ensured even to the educated youth how can they be expected to be paying taxes?

Tests like IQ tests are usually standardised, something like that can be used.
I'm not saying that anyone will ensure that they will get jobs. I said that they should be allowed to vote only if they are working and earning enough to pay taxes.

Is an IQ test and an aptitude test the same thing? I was under the impression that the two are different. If the jobs are not ensured for the deserving first then those who are advantaged by reservation policies or being rich will have an advantage of landing lucrative jobs over the meritorious. Under these circumstances would it be fair to restrict voying rights only to those who are earning enough to pay taxes? 
souro Moderator
souro
souro

Joined: 27 January 2007
Posts: 14419

Posted: 20 January 2011 at 6:34am | IP Logged
Originally posted by crazy_sunny

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by crazy_sunny

Originally posted by souro

How about this:-
1. Conduct an aptitude test at the age of 18 and only those candidates who obtain above 50% marks will be eligible for voting rights
2. Put a condition that those candidates who obtained voting rights can vote only after they have started working and are paying taxes (i.e. earning equal to or more than the taxable income)

@ 1- How does one judge on the basis of an aptitude score? A person can have different apptitudes. How would aptitude for one thing be considered better or superior to the other?
@ 2- Who will ensure work/jobs to those who have the aptitude? If jobs are not ensured even to the educated youth how can they be expected to be paying taxes?

Tests like IQ tests are usually standardised, something like that can be used.
I'm not saying that anyone will ensure that they will get jobs. I said that they should be allowed to vote only if they are working and earning enough to pay taxes.

Is an IQ test and an aptitude test the same thing? I was under the impression that the two are different. If the jobs are not ensured for the deserving first then those who are advantaged by reservation policies or being rich will have an advantage of landing lucrative jobs over the meritorious. Under these circumstances would it be fair to restrict voying rights only to those who are earning enough to pay taxes? 

Have you seen questions of IQ tests? They are like aptitude test questions but not concentrated towards any one particular field and measures the general intelligence of the person.
And I didn't get you about jobs being ensured for the deserving. Ain't the deserving person who will get the work. And who talked about reservations?

Roadrunnerz Goldie
Roadrunnerz
Roadrunnerz

Joined: 09 August 2008
Posts: 1723

Posted: 20 January 2011 at 6:40am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by crazy_sunny

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by crazy_sunny

Originally posted by souro

How about this:-
1. Conduct an aptitude test at the age of 18 and only those candidates who obtain above 50% marks will be eligible for voting rights
2. Put a condition that those candidates who obtained voting rights can vote only after they have started working and are paying taxes (i.e. earning equal to or more than the taxable income)

@ 1- How does one judge on the basis of an aptitude score? A person can have different apptitudes. How would aptitude for one thing be considered better or superior to the other?
@ 2- Who will ensure work/jobs to those who have the aptitude? If jobs are not ensured even to the educated youth how can they be expected to be paying taxes?

Tests like IQ tests are usually standardised, something like that can be used.
I'm not saying that anyone will ensure that they will get jobs. I said that they should be allowed to vote only if they are working and earning enough to pay taxes.

Is an IQ test and an aptitude test the same thing? I was under the impression that the two are different. If the jobs are not ensured for the deserving first then those who are advantaged by reservation policies or being rich will have an advantage of landing lucrative jobs over the meritorious. Under these circumstances would it be fair to restrict voying rights only to those who are earning enough to pay taxes? 

Have you seen questions of IQ tests? They are like aptitude test questions but not concentrated towards any one particular field and measures the general intelligence of the person.
And I didn't get you about jobs being ensured for the deserving. Ain't the deserving person who will get the work. And who talked about reservations?

I guess you meant IQ tests and not apptitude. They are different.
If we were sure about the deserving getting their due we would not have this topic. Let us forget about the reservation of jobs for the time being but even then a lot of jobs are acquired by unfair means eg letter of recomendation from politicians, by virtue of being related to some bigwig, or even by bribing ones way into a job. Merit is not always the criteria for selection.


Edited by crazy_sunny - 20 January 2011 at 6:41am
souro Moderator
souro
souro

Joined: 27 January 2007
Posts: 14419

Posted: 20 January 2011 at 6:45am | IP Logged
Originally posted by crazy_sunny

I guess you meant IQ tests and not apptitude. They are different.
If we were sure about the deserving getting their due we would not have this topic. Let us forget about the reservation of jobs for the time being but even then a lot of jobs are acquired by unfair means eg letter of recomendation from politicians, by virtue of being related to some bigwig, or even by bribing ones way into a job. Merit is not always the criteria for selection.

@ Bold: So?
return_to_hades IF-Sizzlerz
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 23331

Posted: 20 January 2011 at 7:41am | IP Logged

I agree with the rationale of aptitude tests. People should have at least a simple cognitive understanding to know what is going on and make rational decisions.  No one has to be genius or even educated to pass this.

 

However, I do not agree with the requirement to be working taxpaying citizens. Not all capable people are employed or earning taxable income. I don't see why a stay at home mom,  a full time student, a wealthy trust fund child or even the homeless should be eliminated from voting if they have decision making ability.

 

The problem implementing any such system in democracies is the logistics. Administering and monitoring such tests is expensive and can be a logistical nightmare in populous countries like India. Even before it goes ahead there will be judicial challenges in redefining or fine tuning constitutional equality. When it does fall into place it will still be self defeating as it would be planned and executed by a corrupt, dishonest or even downright stupid bureaucracy resulting from generations of fools electing their kings of fools.

souro Moderator
souro
souro

Joined: 27 January 2007
Posts: 14419

Posted: 20 January 2011 at 9:33am | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades

I agree with the rationale of aptitude tests. People should have at least a simple cognitive understanding to know what is going on and make rational decisions.  No one has to be genius or even educated to pass this.

 

However, I do not agree with the requirement to be working taxpaying citizens. Not all capable people are employed or earning taxable income. I don't see why a stay at home mom,  a full time student, a wealthy trust fund child or even the homeless should be eliminated from voting if they have decision making ability.

 

The problem implementing any such system in democracies is the logistics. Administering and monitoring such tests is expensive and can be a logistical nightmare in populous countries like India. Even before it goes ahead there will be judicial challenges in redefining or fine tuning constitutional equality. When it does fall into place it will still be self defeating as it would be planned and executed by a corrupt, dishonest or even downright stupid bureaucracy resulting from generations of fools electing their kings of fools.


I said tax paying because I wanted to include only those people who are contributing to the nation in a constructive way. Although, yes every working person contributes something even if they don't earn enough to pay taxes but I wanted to restrict it to only those whose contribution is significant and easily measurable. Yes, it can be argued, significant for who, how much is significant and who gets to decide it, but for now I'm just taking taxes as a measure and taking tax payers as significant contributors.

I am against students indulging in politics. They might know everything about how to run a country and how parliament functions, but I don't know that for sure and neither are they doing anything at that point of time to improve the condition of the country. Yes they are preparing themselves so that they can contribute in future and I'm saying we will let them vote in future too. So, why do they need to jump in right then? Is it just because at present the eligible age is fixed at 18 in India?
As for someone living off trust funds, I don't know how exactly it works. If the fund is invested in something and even if it's not the beneficiary but the trustee board in whose name the tax is filed, ultimately tax is being paid.
The only thing that doesn't sound right is excluding those housewives who have enough intelligence and knowledge to choose an intelligent leader. Maybe, something can be worked out for them too, since they do play a very important role without getting to earn a fixed salary or profits.

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
Is democracy the best political system?

2 3 4 5

Author: Zeinelnour   Replies: 39   Views: 3400

Zeinelnour 39 3400 09 May 2009 at 8:59am by Lost-angel
Democracy is in turmoil in Islamic nation

2

Author: ...M...   Replies: 14   Views: 1046

...M... 14 1046 24 April 2007 at 8:20pm by mermaid_QT
Democracy in a profit-oriented market?!?!

2

Author: Jia   Replies: 11   Views: 1179

Jia 11 1179 10 February 2007 at 9:34am by ritzbitz
Is India really a democracy?

Author: anjali.nair   Replies: 0   Views: 718

anjali.nair 0 718 27 August 2006 at 1:51pm by anjali.nair
Is democracy really effective?

Author: sanya_s   Replies: 1   Views: 532

sanya_s 1 532 02 August 2006 at 2:36am by Athena90

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index