Why should stupid people have a vote?

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
119
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Stupid people should probably get two votes, governments are supposed to be proportionately representative and as there are more stupid people than bright people the daft and hopeless should be given more input.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Actually I would like to know two things.

You wouldn't go to a stupid Doctor, a stupid Lawyer, or a stupid Financial adviser knowingly, so why go to stupid people to choose your government?

Secondly, would politicians be better scrutinised and have better policies if they could not rely on manipulating stupid people to vote for them?

I have seen all sorts of analysis on how different demographic groups vote, but I've never seen one saying this is how Masters Graduates voted for example. I think it would be interesting.

Please don't think that I am suggesting the Masters Graduates are any better at judging good government that say anyone else.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
I think I mentioned that I wasn't going down the IQ test road as it is as flawed as the example that Pecker gave.

But let's pretend then that it is a true measure of intelligence.

The average person has an IQ of 100. What effect would it have on a candidate's credibility if it was known that 80% of the people who voted for him or her had an IQ below the average? Or rather if it was known for example, that Mr. Bush or mr. Blair only got elected because the less intelligent had voted for him? You would after all be elected if everyone with an IQ below 101 voted for you.
 

Osiris

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Posts
2,666
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
183
Location
Wherever the dolphins are going
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
OK, then here is where there is a problem quantifying. What is you barometer to gauge stupid? Stupid is a very objective term used in this context. It plays out everyday on this forum. A post that one may see as "stupid", another may see as "insightful".

So, that said, unless an "idiot basis" can be explained and everyone answering is on the same page, it does tend to become dictatorial because it is one man's or small group's view of idiocy.

I hope that made sense. It's still very early here.
 

Andro Man

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Posts
171
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
This topic is a dumbed down version on Plato's view of politics. His idea(or Socrates')was that only ppl in the know should be allowed to vote. Knowledgeable enough on the affairs of government.
That it should be an elite that ruled instead of a (the dumb masses) democracy...

Don't worry I'm sure your worries are already taken care of by the Rockefellers, Rothchilds and others.
 

Falcon9

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Posts
452
Media
0
Likes
24
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Just TAX the stupid people...we don't all need nurse-maiding... And while you're at it, take away all their guns. The fun thing about armchair politics is that if you have a more comfortable chair, the better you sound to yourself.
 

Osiris

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Posts
2,666
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
183
Location
Wherever the dolphins are going
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Just TAX the stupid people...we don't all need nurse-maiding... And while you're at it, take away all their guns. The fun thing about armchair politics is that if you have a more comfortable chair, the better you sound to yourself.

Well put about "Armchair Politics".:smile:
 

yngjock20

Admired Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Posts
4,097
Media
5
Likes
975
Points
333
Location
The Other Valley
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You wouldn't take a stupid person's advice on anything serious, so why do you let them vote on to how your life is affected by government?

I don't know if it's already been said, but that's why we have the electoral college. Their votes ultimately make the decision (I'm assuming you're talking about presidential elections).

It's been argued for decades that its necessity is no longer apropriate, however because of the intricate ties created through the decades since it's inception, it has yet to be dismissed.
 

ballgagsnippleclamps

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Posts
135
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
236
Location
Ohio, USA
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
There needs to be a "stupid test" in there somewhere.

Not for canidates though... anybody can go out shake alot of hands and drum up support and then get in office and bend like a reed in the wind on the issues they campaigned on.

The stupid test should be for issues and tax levys. The voting screen comes up "Issue 3. Do you wish to vote?" If yes "What is Issue 3 about?" series of multiple choices, is voter gets the correct one "Who does Issue 3 effect?" is voter gets the correct one then they get to vote.

I personally am way less aggrivated by my canidate losing then aparticular tax or issue getting approved when half the voters are non property owners and not interested in bettering their community.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
This topic is a dumbed down version on Plato's view of politics. His idea(or Socrates')was that only ppl in the know should be allowed to vote. Knowledgeable enough on the affairs of government.
That it should be an elite that ruled instead of a (the dumb masses) democracy...

Don't worry I'm sure your worries are already taken care of by the Rockefellers, Rothchilds and others.

Actually, this isn't quite right either. It's a long time since I used Plato to cure insomnia, but I think he wanted an Oligarchy having votes, with the people running the government having an incredible amount of education. A system that Confucius developed in to the mandarin system, which itself was central to the running of the British Empire.

Rockerfeller and others would technically be a plutocracy.

My devil's advocate question regards our acceptance of Churchill's analysis that Democracy is the best of a bad bunch of options and specifically whether democracy is weakened because politicians can be elected even if the 51% required for a majority is from the least equipped to make an informed decision.

Ever wonder why you don't get to vote on certain things?
 

D_Tintagel_Demondong

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Posts
3,928
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Just TAX the stupid people...we don't all need nurse-maiding...

There is a tax for stupid people -- it's called gambling.

If mentally handicapped people can vote, then why not let childred, or even your dog vote. I hate to seem unsympathetic, but it's true. People should at least prove that they understand the platforms before the enter the booth.
 

Not_Punny

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
5,464
Media
109
Likes
3,056
Points
258
Location
California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Animals can vote in America!

Last year, an American woman was put on trial for having her dog vote. She only did it to SHOW how flawed the system was, but they arraigned her anyway.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In America, let's not forget two things:

-- It's government by the people, for the people. If a majority of people are stupid, then a stupid government is constitutionally correct.

-- The biggest "test" of an IQ test is whether or not you know how to take such a test.

And globally speaking, let's not forget that events that elevate the lot of mankind have rarely emanated from a born or elected official. There have been many brilliant exceptions, of course, but these are the rare exception when one considers the ratio of brilliant to stupid.

IMHO, it's hard to change or better the world when you have to attend so many stupid committees.... :rolleyes:
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Actually, this is the reason why America is not a pure democracy. We are a Republic that works by representative democracy. The theory is that the general public elects executive branch officers and legislative branch officers to go and run the country and make laws.

These elected officials are people who work as proxies to the general electorate. We pay them to have advisors and research staffs so they can understand the complex issues that we don't have the resources to understand ourselves. With that understanding, we expect them to act in a way that is similar to how we would act if we were in their place.

So what you do is vote for the person who you think represents your ideology and you send them off to drill down into the complicated issues and make decisions in your behalf.

Its important, of course, to keep an eye on their performance, and make sure they are doing the right thing. Since the average voter doesn't have the resources to understand or research complex things like Middle East policy, we depend on the press to provide facts and analysis. Its not a foreign notion that the press is a kind of integral part of the equation, even though it is an independent private institution. This is why freedom of the press is explicity guaranteed by the Constitution.

So its our responsibility to keep informed enough to evaluate the performance of our elected officials, but not to the level where we might be able to make the same decisions he does in every case.

The electoral college probably was part of that philosophy in the days when travel and communications was inefficient, but even in the light of what I just said above, it is obsolete. We are able to elect our own president by public referendum. It is just too cumbersome and we are not informed enough to make all laws that way.