If you could change the voting system what would you do?

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

...When I was 11 I did a barrage of IQ tests, never having done one before, and scored an average of 178, which I gather is pretty high.
It should also be noted that when I was 11 we were nearing the end of a 7-year court case, and had bugger all money, lived in a mobile home. We had some other assets, sure, but couldn't sell them....

Yeah.. that's not the point though, is it?

There's a mother at our local school who ticks a pile of boxes that would usually be associated with "social deprivation": Unmarried/single mother, kids by different fathers (both absent), rented accomodation, on benefits etc...

She's still "middle class"...

The ones who do tend to score lower than they should on IQ tests generally don't have seven-year court cases or assets... "affluence" is a proxy for other social conditons.

But then, you know this, don't you? :-)

Cheers,
W.

Well, what I was trying to say (nicely) is it's bunkum. People who are stupid don't do as well on IQ tests.

The 'oh it's 'cause you're affluent/middle class/whatever' is just an excuse.

But y'know, Buns, call a spade a spade... :P

The air must be really thin up there in your World, from where you can look down on us....

My point stems from a Channel 4 programme called race and intelligence: Science's last taboo (LiT's stop rolling your eyes and saying "oh here we go").

In 2007 a Nobel Prize winning American scientist said that black people are less intelligent than other races. He said this based on a samples low IQ scores. The scientist was condemned. The right wing hailed him as a hero. The left was horrified. The presenter Ragheh Omar questioned what IQ tests actually measure.

The point is that IQ tests are shaped to be biased and serve to measure knowledge that is more prevalent in certain social lifestyles.

A brilliant example is the old experiment that if you take a failing kid (race not withstanding) out of a failing quite destructive urban environment and place him in an affluent environment with an equally demanding school. Results have shown the child to perform as well as the other kids (obviously there is some varience).

Intelligence is about what you know and that is dependant on what you've been taught whether through observation or being shown directly. IQ tests measure this. Schooling is key and the rich tend to be able to provide their kids with better schools than the poor. (Or is it me or did half the majority of the current Government go to private school.)

The capacity for intelligence, natural aptitude, however, is something that hasn't been successfully measured.

All things are not equal so yes some people are more knowledgable about certain subjects than others, that does not mean that overall they are smarter than them. Some forms of knowledge or more relevant and valued in society but that doesn't mean they are harder to comprehend.

asprilla

I've never seen an IQ test which asks about politics, fiscal policy or Plato. They are mainly based around things like basic problem solving or identifying patterns in sequence. IQ tests aren't about what you know since the question should contain all the information that is required to answer.

As you say, IQ tests are about capacity to learn, not what you know.

DonDaddyD

Asprilla wrote:

I've never seen an IQ test which asks about politics, fiscal policy or Plato. They are mainly based around things like basic problem solving or identifying patterns in sequence. IQ tests aren't about what you know since the question should contain all the information that is required to answer.

As you say, IQ tests are about capacity to learn, not what you know.

Yeah I took that bit out because I knew that someone was going to latch onto it.

I took an IQ test mine was high. The questions I found were those people living in a certain society would be more familar with answering. This had nothing to do with capacity to learn and more to do with socail experience shaping my ability to process the question and answer the problem. I.e. i was familar with the type of question.

However,

The channel 4 programme and the scientist speaking out against the Nobel Prize winning scientist must have been wrong then.

I'll go back to trying to start this fire by smashing two stones together...

wulfhound

IQ tests are a reasonable measure of (certain aspects of) mental /fitness/ - but as anyone here should well know, fitness and innate capability bear little relation to one another - especially when the norm for most people is the intellectual equivalent of McD's and all-day TV.

Anyways, I don't think problem-solving ability has much correlation with common sense or wisdom (ever spent time around elite maths geeks?).. but there's no excuse for being uninformed and pig-ignorant /regardless/ of your innate ability.

asprilla

Hey, I think IQ testing (along with all psychometric testing) is pure snake oil, however, they are designed to stand alone with no external learning required. Mind, there will always be some cultural skewing; you can't avoid it because they are written by people.

As for the programme and the situation surrounding it:

TV show shows shocking aspects of an argument to produce compelling viewing and create 'water cooler moments'? Never, surely?

Scientist bored with being in the lab either has book to promote or wants 15 minutes of fame on TV and so makes / refutes outlandish claim with utmost convition? Never, surely?

DonDaddyD

wulfhound wrote:

IQ tests are a reasonable measure of (certain aspects of) mental /fitness/ - but as anyone here should well know, fitness and innate capability bear little relation to one another - especially when the norm for most people is the intellectual equivalent of McD's and all-day TV.

Anyways, I don't think problem-solving ability has much correlation with common sense or wisdom (ever spent time around elite maths geeks?).. but there's no excuse for being uninformed and pig-ignorant /regardless/ of your innate ability.

What gets me:

The assumption of people on other people and their lives, when that assumption is clearly based on:

i) A lack of experience of that persons lifestyle and influences.
ii) A lack of tollerance and understanding.

Its a chip, I can admit. But during my teenage years, having had to endure the chavs-to-be-ASBO-collectors at school and the private school middle class blue bloods elsewhere its struggle for acceptance.

Too posh and affluent to be accepted by the gangs. Too urban (ethnic) to be accepted by the toffs. Neither LiTs (I don't have blond hair of blue eyes) or Shaniquar (I don't have corn-rows or a tattoo across my neck) would date me. Yet I can, in part, understand both.

Champion of the people, vote for me!

I'm going to start my own party. Libs are too far left, jesus what I earn i don't actually want taxed I don't want to be taxed anymore. The Tories are too far right. What I need is a centralist view that isn't the greed of Labour.

Vote for me.

tailwindhome

Yeah Lit. you sack fat girls and make them cry!

rhext

Seems to me that we need an electoral system which ensures that the make-up of parliament more closely represents the split of votes in the country.

It's pretty clear that our existing first past the post system almost guarantees any emergent third party is going to be substantially disadvantaged. For years, LibDem representation has been way below proportion of votes cast.

You could argue that our whole system is built around one strong party running the country and another strong party opposing what they do. Tough luck on the third party, it doesn't have a role and it therefore doesn't matter if they don't get any seats.

I feel that we can be a bit more subtle than that these days: first past the post leaves the views of a substantial proportion of the population unrepresented. And the fact that the government then has to work harder to establish a concensus doesn't seem a bad thing to me either!

wgwarburton

Hi,
Can I just point out that we have a system of PR in place already in Scotland. Anyone wanting to understand the implications would do well to have a look at pros and cons of that setup.
It's complex because it aims to allow local accountability and proportional representation. This is achieved by having local representatives in each consituency and additional members who represent regions. These candidates ("list members") are returned according to the proportion of votes cast in the region. So if (oversimplifying) 5 local candidates were all (say) Labour but the region as a whole voted 50:50 SNP/Labour, then 5 SNP MPs would be returned from the list and the region would be accurately represented, even if the constituencies wern't.
Unfortunately, the system isn't well understood, yet, hence the large number of spoiled ballots at the last election.
We get to do it all again next year- maybe it'll work better this time. To simplify things the local council elections are being seperated, so they don't run on the same day.

We've had a coalition, we now have a minority government. The sky didn't fall in. I think there was a bit of incredulity in Scotland over the press response to the formation of a coalition in Westminster... There seemed to be a lot of fuss being made over something that wasn't much of a big deal...

Cheers,
W.

rhext

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
Can I just point out that we have a system of PR in place already in Scotland. Anyone wanting to understand the implications would do well to have a look at pros and cons of that setup.
It's complex because it aims to allow local accountability and proportional representation. This is achieved by having local representatives in each consituency and additional members who represent regions. These candidates ("list members") are returned according to the proportion of votes cast in the region. So if (oversimplifying) 5 local candidates were all (say) Labour but the region as a whole voted 50:50 SNP/Labour, then 5 SNP MPs would be returned from the list and the region would be accurately represented, even if the constituencies wern't.
Unfortunately, the system isn't well understood, yet, hence the large number of spoiled ballots at the last election.
We get to do it all again next year- maybe it'll work better this time. To simplify things the local council elections are being seperated, so they don't run on the same day.

We've had a coalition, we now have a minority government. The sky didn't fall in. I think there was a bit of incredulity in Scotland over the press response to the formation of a coalition in Westminster... There seemed to be a lot of fuss being made over something that wasn't much of a big deal...

Cheers,
W.

I think this is the point I was trying to make.

The supporters of the first past the post system talk endlessly about the disaster that will befall us if we don't have a strong majority government in place. Well, we don't have one at the moment and it seems to be panning out OK so far!

asprilla

Yes, look at the disaster that befalls Germany every time elects a coallition government; which is pretty much every time they have an election.

lost_in_thought

Asprilla wrote:

Hey, I think IQ testing (along with all psychometric testing) is pure snake oil, however, they are designed to stand alone with no external learning required. Mind, there will always be some cultural skewing; you can't avoid it because they are written by people.

As for the programme and the situation surrounding it:

TV show shows shocking aspects of an argument to produce compelling viewing and create 'water cooler moments'? Never, surely?

Scientist bored with being in the lab either has book to promote or wants 15 minutes of fame on TV and so makes / refutes outlandish claim with utmost convition? Never, surely?

IQ tests are designed to be stand-alone, and indeed they are. There's no question that would put anyone from any background at a disadvantage. Hence why I said what I said earlier about stupid people finding them harder and any excuses being just that.

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

Too posh and affluent to be accepted by the gangs. Too urban (ethnic) to be accepted by the toffs. Neither LiTs (I don't have blond hair of blue eyes) or Shaniquar (I don't have corn-rows or a tattoo across my neck) would date me. Yet I can, in part, understand both.

I could have written this, word for word, about me.
Seems like we have similar political views too. Thing is, I'd be a dictator, no need for any voting system then.

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

IQ tests are designed to be stand-alone, and indeed they are. There's no question that would put anyone from any background at a disadvantage. Hence why I said what I said earlier about stupid people finding them harder and any excuses being just that.

Now I had always understood that there was a certain amount of practice you could do with IQ test papers, to familiarise yourself with the style/type of question. But once you've got over that familiarisation process, the questions do as you say require nothing more than raw brain horse power; once you've found your level, that's pretty much that, and no further practising will increase it.

Now, Miss LiTs, play nicely with the other children. It's not nice to laugh at the ones counting on their fingers. Any more of that, and it's back to the sandpit for you.

dreamlx10

Don't let anyone vote, the people of this country don't deserve the vote.

stuaff

What annoys me: people who can't be bothered to vote, 'because they're all the same', 'they don't listen', 'my vote doesn't make a difference', blah blah blah....WTF do they expect? You don't express an opinion, you don't tell politicians what you want from them yet you still want a voice? Perhaps they'd all like to live in North Korea, the not voting works really well for Kim Jong-Il and cronies.
I'm not sure compulsory voting is a good idea, but might sort some of the apathetic out. There's a great film made back in 1970, 'The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer'- makes some pertinent points about being careful what you wish for in politicians.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

IQ tests are designed to be stand-alone, and indeed they are. There's no question that would put anyone from any background at a disadvantage. Hence why I said what I said earlier about stupid people finding them harder and any excuses being just that.

Now I had always understood that there was a certain amount of practice you could do with IQ test papers, to familiarise yourself with the style/type of question. But once you've got over that familiarisation process, the questions do as you say require nothing more than raw brain horse power; once you've found your level, that's pretty much that, and no further practising will increase it.

Until 2008 Northern Ireland still operated an 11 plus examination. Those who passed had the opportunity to go to grammar school, those who failed went to secondary school.

'On paper' this gave every child in Northern Ireland an equal opportunity to gain a place a place at a grammar school and from there to third level education. In practice those from middle class backgrounds invested more time, money and effort in their children's education, many employing tutors to coach the children in exam techniques in order to ensure they would get the all important A grade, resulting in a self perpetuating circle of middle class success.

tailwindhome

StuAff wrote:

What annoys me: people who can't be bothered to vote, 'because they're all the same', 'they don't listen', 'my vote doesn't make a difference', blah blah blah....WTF do they expect?

I intend to continue to exercise my democratic right not to vote.

I look at the names on the ballot paper and decide not to give my consent to any of the candidates to represent me.

So there.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

IQ tests are designed to be stand-alone, and indeed they are. There's no question that would put anyone from any background at a disadvantage. Hence why I said what I said earlier about stupid people finding them harder and any excuses being just that.

Now I had always understood that there was a certain amount of practice you could do with IQ test papers, to familiarise yourself with the style/type of question. But once you've got over that familiarisation process, the questions do as you say require nothing more than raw brain horse power; once you've found your level, that's pretty much that, and no further practising will increase it.

Until 2008 Northern Ireland still operated an 11 plus examination. Those who passed had the opportunity to go to grammar school, those who failed went to secondary school.

'On paper' this gave every child in Northern Ireland an equal opportunity to gain a place a place at a grammar school and from there to third level education. In practice those from middle class backgrounds invested more time, money and effort in their children's education, many employing tutors to coach the children in exam techniques in order to ensure they would get the all important A grade, resulting in a self perpetuating circle of middle class success.

Tutors cost money, and that limits access to them, I accept. But time and effort are things any parent can (and should) devote to their child's education. The 66s attend the local primary school (thank you, oh bountiful Flying Spaghetti Monster, for sparing me from school fees for the time being). There are plenty of not that well off parents. But there are plenty who simply don't invest time in reading with their children, doing times tables with them and so on. The correlation between the two groups isn't perfect, by a long chalk.

EKE_38BPM

Greg66 wrote:

Tutors cost money, and that limits access to them

And because of that I offered my services (FOC) as a maths tutor to a few of my friends and family's kids. Some parents didn't take up my offer (with no good reason as far as I can remember) and the few I did tutor just didn't seem interested. The seed seemed to have been sewn early that school and learning wasn't for them, so I was always fighting an uphill battle.

Maybe (probably) its too late to give extra tuition to 13-15 year olds who don't want to learn. Perhaps I should try again (I gave up because of lack of interest from the parents and the kids) but with younger kids.

DonDaddyD

EKE, I would be dictator too...

On the schooling IQ thing, I can't be bothered to argue this :shock: I've seen and experienced too many varying examples to listen...

I went to a school where my English teacher was molested by guys that I sat next to in College. My close friend went to Alleyns (private school in Dulwich) on an assissted place. Man, I wish my parents sent me there, I would have fitted right in. Alas they were too young (my parents are in their 40's) and couldn't afford it/didn't know any better. My Dad openly says he was but a boy when he had me. I cannot discuss the long road it took to claw myself from the lifestyle a failing school in a socio-economically deprived area brings.

My personality and life experience means that I am compelled to aspire. It alienates me with some (which is why I'm quiet with new people) but I like looking in the mirror and sniffing the smell of success.

My brother went to private school and went to Saturday school every week since the age of 12 (except for family holidays). They sent him to these schools for a good education as much as to keep him from being led astray. Turns out he hated it went to a public school and excelled. I'd have loved to go to his private school... We're cut from the same cloth but in a different mold my Mum would say. Our GCSE grades are about the same but I'm more academic for the time being.

My cousin, head boy of a grammar school, had a maths grade A GCSE in year 10, took it a year early with a whole bunch of GCSE's. Wasn't happy with it so retook it for an A*. He doesn't have anything less than an A in his GCSE's. His Mum is a teacher. However as my Dad would argue, he was brainy from birth, he simply got the gene. His parents could have been failures of life he still would have been brainy.

Part of it is upbringing and social influences. Part of it is wealth (being able to provide tutors), quality of teaching and time you put into developing the child. The other part is the child themself.

DonDaddyD

I do feel if time, money and education was invested into disadvantaged areas and negative imagery: drugs, alcohol, materialism*, gangsta this/that etc wasn't glorified kids (in socially deprived areas) would stand more of a chance in meeting their potential.

My kids are going to either a good school, private school or like Chris (in Everybody hates Chris) a school where they're the only ones.

Of the politicians I've seen they talk a good game but they really don't want to deal with the life issues of the disadvantaged. Its like having those people stuck in their self destructive cycle serves a purpose.

Thats why when a person emerges from that World as an MP, they get my vote.

*Yes I can be materialistic, I spent years not being so I worked hard to get to where I am so I don't have to question the worth of a person when I want to spend my money on shinny things.

Sorry for the preaching, I've just come back from Barking... salt of the Earth.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sorry for the preaching, I've just come back from Barking... salt of the Earth.

Fruit of the vine also?

jonginge

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sorry for the preaching, I've just come back from Barking... salt of the Earth.

Fruit of the vine also?

Beware The Grapes of Wrath!

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

IQ tests are designed to be stand-alone, and indeed they are. There's no question that would put anyone from any background at a disadvantage. Hence why I said what I said earlier about stupid people finding them harder and any excuses being just that.

Now I had always understood that there was a certain amount of practice you could do with IQ test papers, to familiarise yourself with the style/type of question. But once you've got over that familiarisation process, the questions do as you say require nothing more than raw brain horse power; once you've found your level, that's pretty much that, and no further practising will increase it.

Now, Miss LiTs, play nicely with the other children. It's not nice to laugh at the ones counting on their fingers. Any more of that, and it's back to the sandpit for you.

Of course, if you can get your hands on the type of paper beforehand that would be an advantage, it transpires that you could write away to Mensa and other places to get them, and despite fitting in to DDD's 'affluent' sector, my mum was too busy running a cashmere goat farm, participating in a court case and raising 2 kids to write off. They were free though.

Didn't make any difference to me. Or did it? Maybe I'd have hit 179 with practice. We did have a few practice questions before each test, I seem to recall.

And no, it's not nice, greggles, but at least I don't bait them like you do.... :P

EKE_38BPM

lost_in_thought wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

IQ tests are designed to be stand-alone, and indeed they are. There's no question that would put anyone from any background at a disadvantage. Hence why I said what I said earlier about stupid people finding them harder and any excuses being just that.

Now I had always understood that there was a certain amount of practice you could do with IQ test papers, to familiarise yourself with the style/type of question. But once you've got over that familiarisation process, the questions do as you say require nothing more than raw brain horse power; once you've found your level, that's pretty much that, and no further practising will increase it.

Now, Miss LiTs, play nicely with the other children. It's not nice to laugh at the ones counting on their fingers. Any more of that, and it's back to the sandpit for you.

Of course, if you can get your hands on the type of paper beforehand that would be an advantage, it transpires that you could write away to Mensa and other places to get them, and despite fitting in to DDD's 'affluent' sector, my mum was too busy running a cashmere goat farm, participating in a court case and raising 2 kids to write off. They were free though.

Didn't make any difference to me. Or did it? Maybe I'd have hit 179 with practice. We did have a few practice questions before each test, I seem to recall.

And no, it's not nice, greggles, but at least I don't bait them like you do.... :P

DDD, we've been told. Back into the field for us, that cotton ain't gonna pick itself.

EKE_38BPM

I am joking BTW. Jamaica was all about the sugar cane, not cotton.

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

my mum was too busy running a cashmere goat farm

Only the best, dahhllinggg!

PS Is your secret identity ... Damon Hill?

I *knew* it!

lost_in_thought wrote:

And no, it's not nice, greggles, but at least I don't bait them like you do.... :P

Oooohhh! You cheeky moo! I think I've been quite nice about the deltas/epsilons...

tailwindhome

lost_in_thought wrote:

my mum was too busy running a cashmere goat farm

That old excuse!

tailwindhome

Edit to remove a lot of serious stuff...this therad has all the hallmarks of a 13 pager

Greg66 wrote:

thank you, oh bountiful Flying Spaghetti Monster, for sparing me from school fees for the time being

Must be agony staying 'on message' through all those parent evenings.