Why should stupid people have a vote?

[B_ajaxgayguy7]

Or be the president of the states.

 

[Shelby]

I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2000 members of the faculty of Harvard University.

- Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.

 

[kalipygian]

Everybody who voted for W. twice should be declared a felon and not be allowed to vote again.
(Or possess firearms:wink

 

[B_Nick4444]

why not? we elect stupid people to office, who in turn appoint stupid people to our courts, cabinets, etc ...

 

[Not_Punny]

If we're all so stupid, then why worry about trying to escape stupid? Isn't it a perfect fit?!!

 

[Axcess]

I think that if you denied the right to vote to stupid people , you are denying that right to over 90% of population .:biggrin1::biggrin1:

 

[THEEman]

how do we validate stupidity? how do we confirm intelligence? until those questions are answered. well....

maybe I am ignorant or/and arrogant in thinking this way

 

[Axcess]

how do we validate stupidity? how do we confirm intelligence? until those questions are answered. well....

maybe I am ignorant or/and arrogant in thinking this way

I don't think that you are ignorant or arrogant at all . this question is very valid.

 

[earllogjam]

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?

Will the next step be sterilizing stupid people?

Isn't that what Hitler did?

I think there is a problem here of who defines what is dumb and what is smart. It is just a "problem" inherent in democracies. That is why these types of governments don't exist very long without free public education.

 

[HazelGod]

I think that if you denied the right to vote to stupid people , you are denying that right to over 90% of population .:biggrin1::biggrin1:

Like that would be a bad thing? :wink:

Seriously...the stupidest part of the whole system is citizenship as a birthright. The value someone places upon anything is a direct reflection of the effort they invested in obtaining that thing. Here, where citizenship (and suffrage) is acquired without effort or sacrifice, you can see this clearly reflected in the participation rates of the electoral processes.

I think Heinlen was right. A voice in the body politic should only be counted when the speaker has demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice something of himself for the good of the general public.

 

[dong20]

Seriously...the stupidest part of the whole system is citizenship as a birthright. The value someone places upon anything is a direct reflection of the effort they invested in obtaining that thing. Here, where citizenship (and suffrage) is acquired without effort or sacrifice, you can see this clearly reflected in the participation rates of the electoral processes.

Different nations have different rules on such things, I'm not speaking to anty one nation here.

The idea sounds laudable in theory but surely it would have a range of practical limitations. At what age would citizenship be assessed? What would a default citizenship be - that of the parents, the mother, the father - neither in which case the child would be stateless and may not be entitled to certain protections and services afforded/available to citizens. Or would such rules be altered/suspended for children?

Of course very few nations still afford citizenship on the basis of merely being born there. Wouldn't having no citizenship impose unwarranted travel and other basic restrictions, wouldn't those restrictions constitute breaches of civil/human rights?

How would one define that enough sacrifice had been made, who would do this, how would it be verified and by whom? Would citizenship be for life, or for a period (for what period) until a fresh or ongoing sacrifice was evidenced. Who would pay for the system of administering this bureaucracy? Would there be a right of appeal, where would the non citizen go until then?

I think Heinlein was right. A voice in the body politic should only be counted when the speaker has demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice something of himself for the good of the general public.

See above.

As I recall, universal suffrage was the subject of many hard won battles, legal and physical. I'm not convinced that the benefits of seeking to assign limitations to the right to vote (other than the obvious) wouldn't be a step back towards the days when the right to vote was the preserve of a very select few, who naturally would tend to resist any progress or change which may erode their position relative to those they would oppress to maintain it.

Approximately 50% of the populations of many countries would recall such battles in their lifetimes. I doubt they're willing to relinquish that hard won right without a fight. Especially not on the recommendation of a popular Sci-Fi Writer!

Don't get me wrong, the principle of excluding the terminally dense from having a say in my life is appealing, but I'm not sure the price of that exclusion wouldn't be too high and the process so open to abuse as to render the result no more than a form of intellectual feudalism.

Anyway, I'm assuming the OP was tongue in cheek so I'm not really seeking an in depth serious debate on this. :smile:

 

[Whopper-lee]

...becuase the are part of the system as well and ruled by the government and society

 

[nick22ca]

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?

If you think hard and long (no pun intended) enough, you should be able to come to the conclusion that we are all stupid (& ignorant, & naive, etc.). In which case, you may need to re-phrase your question

 

[DC_DEEP]

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?

In a perfect world, I would have the opportunity to exterminate the terminally stupid ones, a euthanasia of sorts. Then we would not have to worry about whether or not they have suffrage.

 

[SexyFront]

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?

Because democracy doesn't work

 

[HazelGod]

Because democracy doesn't work

That's not intrinsically true. Its success depends entirely on who does the voting.

Wouldn't having no citizenship impose unwarranted travel and other basic restrictions, wouldn't those restrictions constitute breaches of civil/human rights?

How would one define that enough sacrifice had been made, who would do this, how would it be verified and by whom? Would citizenship be for life, or for a period (for what period) until a fresh or ongoing sacrifice was evidenced. Who would pay for the system of administering this bureaucracy? Would there be a right of appeal, where would the non citizen go until then?

Thanks for the correction...I knew it didn't feel right when I typed it this morning, but I was on the way out of my hotel and didn't have time to dwell on it.

In any case, I can only surmise from your questions above that you've never read Starship Troopers. I'm not putting that paradigm forth as the perfect model, but IMO it would be a step in the right direction.

In a nutshell, those who haven't completed some qualifying term of service (military or otherwise) in order to attain the status of citizen are simply civilians. Aside from suffrage and political service, their rights aren't in any way diminished from what we know now. They just have no voice in the making of public policy.

I'm also in favor of implementing poll tests. Not for basic education a la the Jim Crow era, but on a per-issue basis. Essentially, for any proposition on the ballot a voter must be able to answer a couple germane questions regarding the background and consequences of the issue. If someone doesn't have any clue what the fuck the issue is, he isn't allowed to cast a vote on it, for or against.

And party-line voting? Nuh-uh. Get rid of that bullshit. Yesterday.

 

[IntoxicatingToxin]

I'm probably repeating what someone else has said, but I'm going to say it anyway...

I don't necessarily think that voting should be kept only for the intelligent people... but I DO think that you should have to take a test before you can vote that asks basic questions about the candidates and what they stand for. If you don't pass, you can't vote. WAY too many people out there are voting when they have no idea who or what they are voting for.

 

[THEDUDER]

id restrict voting to people with an IQ level over 140

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Seriously...the stupidest part of the whole system is citizenship as a birthright. The value someone places upon anything is a direct reflection of the effort they invested in obtaining that thing.

Interesting.

The USA requires new (legal) immigrants to pass tests on citizenship and government, etc. I'm sure other nations do as well. That is as it should be. But should the native born automatically get a free pass? Would it be undemocratic to suggest they must also demonstrate some basic citizen-literacy? Testing is required of those who wish to join the military, gain a diploma, or drive a car.

 

[midlifebear]

IQ Tests? In 2008 I find it alarming that people still actually buy into the idea that intelligence can be measured and quantified by such an ethnocentric, pompously arrogant, and easily refuted philosophically archaic myth that any IQ test has a soupçon of empirical validity. From what rock hence yea crawled so sad and furry folk?

What’s next? Is it a generally held opinion by the members of LPSG that it’s too bad one can’t own other people because many would be better off if it were possible?

Oy veys mir!