Why should stupid people have a vote?

[IntoxicatingToxin]

Intelligence CAN be measured by a test, but only when done properly... and 99% of the time, it's not done properly.

You also have to keep in mind what intelligence is. Intelligence is the ability to learn... not how much you already know.

 

[THEDUDER]

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.

what does being ethnocentric and pompously arrogant have to do with anything?

 

[midlifebear]

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.

I take it that you are painfully unaware that there is no state in the USA that requires one to be functionally literate in order to obtain a driver's license and zoom around in a car. Go to your local DMV and ask them about the oral driving exams they are required to give (usually recorded and listened with head phones) to those who cannot read. Again, I'm not pulling this out of my ass. (There are things I CAN pull out of my ass, but I reserve doing so only in private with the company of my ever lovin' squeeze.):fingersx::argue:

 

[dong20]

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

Very true, and most such comments are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what a democracy is. The US isn't one, the UK isn't one, they are merely forms of government that have 'democratic' elements.

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.

No, I was speaking in general terms, I wasn't meaning to imply my questions were based on the book as clearly, they weren't!

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.

OK, that answers some of them, thanks. I not opposed to some form of qualification for having a direct role in governance, the problem is finding one that is equitable and protects the rights of those exempt from such a role.

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.

Again, in principal I'd agree.

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

Can't disagree with that. But then I'd like to see party based politics abolished.

 

[ZOS23xy]

HAZELGOD was referencing a book of Heinlein's : STARSHIP TROOPERS, not to be confused too much with the movie, that has the same name.

In order to vote, you must serve your country.

Though this could be a weird way to work upon the vote: if a spell of only conservative people serve the country, would that totally throw an election?

Got to think it out.

If only stupid people voted, wouldn't we have a republican government? Oh wait...that's already happened?...Oh wait..maybe someone screwed up the voting machines...oh wait...didn't that happen in Ohio?...oh wait...no one bothered to investigate?

So the stupid people did vote, after all. Oh wait...what happened to my vote...?

 

[dong20]

HAZELGOD was referencing a book of Heinlein's : STARSHIP TROOPERS, not to be confused too much with the movie, that has the same name.

Yes, and the 1997 movie was a (watered down) film dramatisation of that book.

 

[mind7]

This is funny. I think understand what Drifterwood is wanting to know. Has nothing to do with banning stupid people from voting. What he wants to know is tracking each voter's vote & their IQ. Then break the votes for each politician into sets, IQ of 40-60, 61-80, 81-100, etc. The IQ system is flawed but in this hypothetical situation we assume it is accurate and the average IQ is 100. If a politician's major voting base is comprised of people with an IQ less than 100 evaluate what the politician offered to increase his votes to see if those promises are being honored or was sold to the masses to win.

Hope I am on the right track here? If so that would be interesting to see. Across the board, low IQ or high. Grab the persons religions views, income, and age range as well. What would be really telling is tracking every voter leading up the election in regards to what type of media influences they accept. Are they big fan of Oprah? CNN viewers? John Stewart fans? Do they avoid it all but then vote according to the information fed to them by friends and relatives? It would be a telling story I am sure but in reality can never happen, breaks way to many laws.

Personally I do not keep up with politics enough to make an informed decision. So I refuse to vote without knowing who I vote for really meets my political opinions. So I don't vote. At the same time I don't bitch and cry when the president turns out to be a stellar failure. I gave up that right when I opted note to vote.

 

[185248]

In the great.... democracy... of Australia it is compulsory to vote, if you don't, and have no good reason for not voting, you are fined. I suppose because the government treats us ALL as stupid, but is that not what most politicians do no matter what country they hail from, treat the voting public as stupid, by thinking we all have short term memories.

 

[Damian Johnson]

Because in a democracy every individual voter's vote is counted and treated equally - regardless of wealth, power, status, intelligence

and that is exactly how it should be

 

[HazelGod]

Also understand that the current oligarchy has no desire for the proletariat to turn out and vote en masse.

Why else would general elections always be held on Tuesdays, a day when the working people of the world are...imagine this...at work?

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Why else would general elections always be held on Tuesdays, a day when the working people of the world are...imagine this...at work?

Another point that should be considered again and again and again. I've heard it said, but don't really know if its true, that the USA makes it more inconvenient to vote than many other industrialized nations.

 

[viking1]

If stupid people weren't allowed to vote, how would we ever have an election?

 

[MidwestGal]

we can ask the same of your question. Freedom! We have the right to vote along with free speech. We don't have to agree with who people vote for anymore than we have to agree with what others say.

 

[dong20]

Also understand that the current oligarchy has no desire for the proletariat to turn out and vote en masse.

Why else would general elections always be held on Tuesdays, a day when the working people of the world are...imagine this...at work?

Another point that should be considered again and again and again. I've heard it said, but don't really know if its true, that the USA makes it more inconvenient to vote than many other industrialized nations.

When would people suggest - Saturday? Sunday (I'm sure there's some asinine restriction against that). Do people think people would be more or less likely to interrupt their leisure days or work days to go vote (working on the assumption that most people work 9-5, Mon-Fri)? I see the logic but I'm not convinced.

Also, it's just possible, although this isn't based on any research (by me) that those very people who will vote even if it's an inconvenience may thus care more about the process (or the issues) than those to whom such a minor inconvenience is enough of an a disincentive to stop them.

Taking that further, is it thus beyond all plausibility that this former group may also have a better grasp of (or care more about) the issues than those for whom making a short detour is simply too much trouble. Which group's votes (in the context of HG's earlier allusion to poll tests) do you think may be better rationalised?

Speedo; I doubt it, General elections in the UK are held on weekdays (since 1832 with the exceptions of 1874, 1895, 1910 and 1918 when it was on a Sat - there was a war on in 1918) and every one since 1935 has been on a Thursday.

I know many people see it as an inconvenience but I think it's the actual process that makes them feel that, as opposed to feeling it's a conspiracy to dissuade them from voting at all.

Anyway the US General Election day is mandated by law, isn't it? In some states it's a legal holiday. Other states have laws that allow workers to go vote without reprisal and (in some cases) loss of pay. A Democratic Congressman (I forget his name) introduced a bill in 2005 to make election day a national holiday (Democracy Day I think it was to be called).

I'm assuming HG was referring to the current administration but I think that pretty much kills any 'general conspiracy' theory. I'm not seeking a fight here, just thinking out loud. :tongue: