Voting Requirements

[Sliderule]

Should one have to pass a minimum IQ test in order to be able to register to vote? In other words, should those of only a certain higher level intelligence be allowed to vote?

And please don't start with, "IQ tests only measure...." etc etc.

This thread was inspired by To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thanks Lights.

[Paradox]

I definitely do not think people should have to meet intelligence requirements in order to vote. Well, at least, not in a fully functioning democracy. It goes against the underlying notion of equality emphasized through the democratic ideal. I don't see why people should be discriminated against just because they were born with, or due to an accident, have an IQ less than that of others.

If your idea was implemented, there's also the problem of setting a minimum IQ level in which people have to above. For example, if the number is set at 110, who is to say that someone at 109 is less sensible. The major effect of such an idea being implemented could only be uproar from the majority of people, as most people don't have a high IQ.

Definitely not a good idea, in my opinion.

[lisakki]

I think a politics/current events quiz would be better than an IQ test. Someone who's voting should know what's going on in the world, and what the two sides stand for, at the very least.

[dragonsscout]

I think a politics/current events quiz would be better than an IQ test. Someone who's voting should know what's going on in the world, and what the two sides stand for, at the very least.

That's about my stance. I don't care much about intelligence, as long as they know what's going on in the world and what the politician's stances are.

[Tocsin]

Anytime you try to limit who participates in government decision making, whether by wealth or inteliigence or ability, you are no longer talking about democracy, and the result of removing participation in government from any group of people, for any reasons, is essentially a form of slavery.


"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case."
--Thomas Paine

[Sliderule]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but back in Jefferson's day weren't only white landowning males allowed to vote? And wasn't this set up because the opinion of the day was similar to the question I had posted above? I don't really think you can quote any of the founding founders in an argument for the universal right to vote. I mean maybe Jefferson, we all know he loved slaves but did he think they should be able to vote?

Secondly, this is a republic it is not a democracy. Currently as it stands votes aren't even equal, need I refer you to the 2000 election. In this country people already accept that they and their votes are not equal, so why not go one step further? People have already willingly given up the bill of rights, maybe they should just keep on chuggin' along and make a few new amendments as well.

It goes against the underlying notion of equality emphasized through the democratic ideal. I don't see why people should be discriminated against just because they were born with, or due to an accident, have an IQ less than that of others.

I believe the constitution and the bill of rights deals more with the equality of rights of people. One can't honestly believe that every man is "equal" to every other man. And please tell me how well is that democratic ideal currently working out? Or perhaps I should have you tell me five years from now, or maybe ten.

I think I should have rephrased the question as, "Do you think we'd be better off if only the intelligent were allowed to vote?" Now apparently as it stands now the vote is 50/50, which means we have an exact split. Or it means that all of the people that have voted have selected both yes and no.

And yes I realize the irony of taking a democratic poll in a thread about restricting who can and who can't vote. I was hoping someone would have pointed this out by now.

Also while some of you view voting as a right, it most clearly is not. Because if it were such then you wouldn't be able to lose it. As it stands right now there are millions of folks incarcerated who have had their rights taken away. One could say that, well they committed a crime and violated the rights of others, thus they shouldn't have rights. And if you have no problem with this I hardly see why you should have one with more restricted voting.

[Paradox]

Secondly, this is a republic it is not a democracy. Currently as it stands votes aren't even equal, need I refer you to the 2000 election. In this country people already accept that they and their votes are not equal, so why not go one step further? People have already willingly given up the bill of rights, maybe they should just keep on chuggin' along and make a few new amendments as well.

The United States isn't the only country in the world, you know. The question you asked relates to voting, not a specific country in which the voting takes place. Anyway, it could be argued that the United States is currently somewhere in between republicanism and democracy.

I believe the constitution and the bill of rights deals more with the equality of rights of people. One can't honestly believe that every man is "equal" to every other man. And please tell me how well is that democratic ideal currently working out? Or perhaps I should have you tell me five years from now, or maybe ten.

One can most certainly believe that all people are born equal. That doesn't mean everyone has to be equal in terms of their social and economic standing, but it does in terms of one's opportunities. That is, all people should have the same opportunity to succeed in what they choose to pursue during their lives. I'm not saying it happens in practice, but in theory it is stated in the definition of democracy. As for constitutions, whilst it may be true that they often deal with issues of equality, it is not always the case. Also, a constitution and bill of rights may deal with the rights of people but that doesn't mean it isn't an example of democracy in action. A constitution is merely one aspect of democracy.

How is the democratic ideal working out? That would depend on where you live and if you expect democracy to be perfect. If you do believe that then you're destined to be disappointed.

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

[Sliderule]

That would depend on where you live and if you expect democracy to be perfect.

I don't expect anything man makes to be perfect nor do I expect a democracy to be perfect, namely because of the people who are allowed to participate in it. I am disappointed that is the whole point of this thread!

That is, all people should have the same opportunity to succeed in what they choose to pursue during their lives. I'm not saying it happens in practice, but in theory it is stated in the definition of democracy.

That's great but I think you're missing the point people aren't equal, ever, even at birth, unless they're identical twins. Fat=Emaciated or Genius=Severe Mental Retardation <~~~~ Please show me how these statements are true. This is not a debate of equality, people simply are not equal, stop trying to make it one.

And yes I'm aware that the U.S. is not the only country in the world , but since this site is in English and has a .com address I think that perhaps it might be okay to assume that the majority of the people reading it are from the U.S.

I also don't think that you should quote Churchill, for god sakes the man told the idiot populace for years that Germany was going to be a problem and that they should do something about it. They didn't want to hear it and buried their heads in the sand, now think what might have happened had the decisions been out of their hands and in his. Only when everything that he said would happen did happen, did they vote to put him in charge. Wow they finally recognized that someone more intelligent than them should be in charge, and one man no less.

[reb]

i suppose this may skew the discussion, but, frankly, i don't think that 'voting' for anything we are offered in november is going to change the 'climate' in this country one whit. it takes no iq to 'pick one' of only two choices (hence, multiple choice tests in school, allowing the half witted to 'pass'-the other alternative is almost as whacky-a subjective professor judging subjective logic as best put on paper as a person can, who may not have the language skills to explain what they mean-what does a piece of paper mean? lol!). what is needed by the country as a whole is people in office who actually give a damn about something other than 'their own nests', and have workable, logical, reasonably 'fair' solutions (yes, i know...such value words...lol!). what we are offered this election, and have been for quite a few has nothing to do with iq, and everything to do with power being held by those who don't care about 'the rest of us'. just subjectively speaking....

reb

[Paradox]

That's great but I think you're missing the point people aren't equal, ever, even at birth, unless they're identical twins. Fat=Emaciated or Genius=Severe Mental Retardation <~~~~ Please show me how these statements are true. This is not a debate of equality, people simply are not equal, stop trying to make it one.

Speaking of missing the point... The key word is opportunity. People are equal in the sense that they all have the same rights as one another, which they a born with, regardless of intelligence level (I speak from a democratic standpoint). That is my main point. Taking away the freedom to vote of people with low intelligence makes them inferior. Of course this is a debate about equality. You value one group of people above another because, according to you, they are below your standing. Basically, I don't think limiting a group's right to vote is a good idea for the reasons I have given. The purpose of the Churchill quote was to say what I think of democracy and why it should remain that in place. Your idea would go against that.

[Sliderule]

You're absolutely correct Reb, and yes you are skewing the thread.

I don't think things are going to change as long as the uneducated masses have a main say, in so much as they don't challenge their elected representative, which is equivalent to saying nothing. Obviously, we're going to get no where as long as people are voting for which monkey they'd like to have the handgun instead of voting to make sure a monkey doesn't get his hands on it at all.

low intelligence makes them inferior

Exactly, a lower intelligence does lead to inferior decisions. I'm glad to see that you've finally come around. Why wouldn't I value the decision of an intelligent person over that of an idiot? You're telling me that you trust to have your medical care performed by an idiot? Or would you rather leave it in the hands of a qualified doctor with an IQ above 130? And so what about democracy, lets throw it out and try something new, how about meritocracy?

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin

See I can quote too! Americans have done just that so as I said lets take it all, they've agreed democratically to give it up. The democracy has agreed that democracy should not remain in place! How can you argue for them paradox? I guess I shouldn't really be posing this question to a paradox anyway should I?

[Paradox]

Exactly, a lower intelligence does lead to inferior decisions. I'm glad to see that you've finally come around. Why wouldn't I value the decision of an intelligent person over that of an idiot? You're telling me that you trust to have your medical care performed by an idiot? Or would you rather leave it in the hands of a qualified doctor with an IQ above 130? And so what about democracy, lets throw it out and try something new, how about meritocracy?

Do not misquote me again, please. Your arguments are pathetic and you're still missing the point. Making a correlation between a medical doctor and an "idiot" demonstrates a lack of quality argument. What I am saying is that if two people are born, one with an IQ of 150 and the other with an IQ of 90, they should have the same opportunity to prove themselves and hold the same rights. A person with such a low IQ might find it difficult to get through high school let alone medical school, but they shouldn't be denied the opportunity to become a doctor. It is highly unlikely they could make it through the tough education system anyway. However, I don't believe they shouldn't have access to it. Again, they will probably fail to be accepted into medical school, so is there a valid reason why they can't try.

As for meritocracy, who is to say that intelligence is synonymous with success?

[Sliderule]

I fail to see how it is pathetic to use a metaphor such as the one I did earlier. Voters can control the quality and even the duration of your life to a certain extent. For example stem cell research, this is something that absolutely promises to save lives and improve the quality of life of many people and has been put into the hands of voters, and have they made the correct decision about it? How is that any different than letting an idiot make a decision for you rather than a doctor? Does everyone in america have medical degrees? Have they done research into stem cell treatments? Do they even realize what exactly is possible with this kind of medical knowledge? I stand by my metaphor. If anything is pathetic it is that you lack the ability to draw the correlation. You are arguing that you don't care how intelligent those voters are who make decisions on your behalf, which I simply cannot believe.

And you say I'm missing the point? The whole point is a denial of opportunity, I understand this completely. The point is: Would you be better off if some were denied the opportunity to express their will through voting? Once only a select few are allowed to vote it stops being a democracy, so please stop arguing that it's against democracy, and the spirit of opportunity, I get it. Instead why don't you try to show that having intelligent people making decisions would be a bad/good thing instead of standing on top of your little soapbox and beating your drum. I don't know why you feel such a need to continue posting the same things you posted in the beginning of this thread.

And to be honest I'm done answering you if you can't bring anything new to the table, you still have failed to answer any of the questions I directed at you and instead misdirect and deflect them with other issues and statements. I've covered both of your two original issues of equality and democracy I don't know what else there is to say.

[Paradox]

You are arguing that you don't care how intelligent those voters are who make decisions on your behalf, which I simply cannot believe.

No. I'm saying that I trust that most people within the average IQ range will make decisions, for the most part, in the best interest of the majority of people. That is just my belief. It won't change.

The point is: Would you be better off if some were denied the opportunity to express their will through voting?

It's hard to say definitively, but I think a lot of people would be angry at being told they can't vote. I'd prefer things as they are if the alternative is to have people resent, or perhaps even hate me because I was born with a higher IQ and was somehow advantaged by it other than the benefits I was born with already (note, I'm merely putting myself in the position of the advantaged, nothing more). I know I'd be irate. Oh, I'm not solely arguing that it is against democracy. I am also saying I believe in democracy, which is why I don't agree with your idea. I do believe the idea lisakki proposed earlier is a better solution. I don't have a problem with making people more aware of politics and the world around them.

I've covered both of your two original issues of equality and democracy I don't know what else there is to say.

I felt the need to reiterate because I didn't think we were on the same wavelength. I noticed you didn't answer my question in regards to meritocracy. I highly doubt we are never going to agree, so I think I should shut up. I'm probably scaring people away from your thread, which wasn't my goal.

[hongi]

Voters NO
Politicians YES

Voters only get one vote every so often. Politicians screw us every chance they get!

[Tocsin]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but back in Jefferson's day weren't only white landowning males allowed to vote? And wasn't this set up because the opinion of the day was similar to the question I had posted above?

It is true that at the foundation of the United States, the ideals of Jefferson were not the ideals of even the majority of his peers in congress, thus, even while advocating democracy, the cause of democracy was undermined by his peers who did not share his enthusiasm for it.

I don't really think you can quote any of the founding founders in an argument for the universal right to vote.

Why? Why should I judge the validity of an argument by the character of the person who said it, or the actions of their peers in their day?

Currently as it stands votes aren't even equal, need I refer you to the 2000 election. In this country people already accept that they and their votes are not equal, so why not go one step further?

Dissatisfaction with the corruption of United States politics from within is easy to understand, but maybe the point shouldn't be that "there's something wrong with democracy" but that "the United States has ceased to be a democracy."

I believe the constitution and the bill of rights deals more with the equality of rights of people. One can't honestly believe that every man is "equal" to every other man.

As in many cases, the brevity of the U.S. constitution creates conflicts of interpretation. A drawn out, detailed explanation of what they meant by certain phrases may have been much less inspiring, but also much less confusing as well.

I doubt if the founders had meant "all men are created equal" to imply that all people had the same abilities, but that in a democratic republic all people deserve representation, as well as the equal and impartial application of justice.

...tell me how well is that democratic ideal currently working out?

Judging democracy by the current situation in the United States is not a fair standard. It can be argued reasonably that the United States has only been a democracy in principle, but never quite in practice.

In any case, there are various forms of representative democracies around the globe which are working satisfactorily for their constituents.

It makes no more sense to judge the worth of democracy on one nation than it would to judge the worth of a religion on the example of one drunken serial killer who claimed to be an adherent of that religion.

I think I should have rephrased the question as, "Do you think we'd be better off if only the intelligent were allowed to vote?"

We would certainly be better off it the people who voted were intelligent and informed. And I certainly wouldn't argue that there are many people who now vote who don't fit either of those standards.

That being said, the case can be made for the importance of restricting the right of people to participation in government to only those people deemed intelligent enough to vote.

Based on the same conditions, the case can also be made that this shows the importance of providing a good education to every citizen in the nation - so that they are all intelligent enough to improve the functioning of a participatory democracy.

And so what about democracy, lets throw it out and try something new, how about meritocracy?

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison

Any form of government that allows one group of people to decide for others is simply another name for tyranny - which I am opposed to, in any form.

See I can quote too!

Quoting others is as easy as "cut and paste." The important question is can a person comprehend and appreciate the idea being expressed?





Tocsin added to this post, 8 minutes and 44 seconds later...

I would also like to point out similar arguments made against the idea of restrictive voting standards made on the "qualified to vote?" thread (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) earlier, though in that case the restriction being proposed was based on ownership of property as opposed to a question of intelligence.

[Sliderule]

Well what's wrong with a little tyranny as long it's for the common good?

But seriously thank you for taking this where I intended it to go Tocsin. And Paradox why couldn't you have just said what you just stated in your first post? Because that perfectly clarifies your position. You seem to think I'm out to try and force tyranny upon the masses, but really I could care less. I don't even vote. This is purely and academic discussion and Tocsin very interesting points as well, I'd love to respond to each one of your questions in your last post but for the time being:

I don't like quoting because I feel that if you can make an argument you should make it and not rely on the words of others to do so. If a quote does serve it's purpose and the reader understands it then jolly good, but for the most part I just don't like quotes period.

Yes if an argument is valid than it doesn't matter too much who argued it or when. I was merely making reference, poorly, to the vast number of founding founders who did not believe in equal voting rights.

Finally, this thread is about the united states and I should have clarified it as such, so please keep in mind I am not condemning all democracy simply the one here. The failure of this system, which you so aptly pointed out is due in no small part the massive failure of our state education system. We are now paying the price for having sold out our youth for so long.

If you want me to go on I can, but I think I've dominated this thread too much already, that and I need to work on some sorely neglected homework in the time being.

[whiteslate]

Well what's wrong with a little tyranny as long it's for the common good?


While profiting out of the Mexican Elections back in 2006 [populist Obrador vs conservative Calderon], I was driven to think that a one man, two votes policy may not be so bad after all, esp in the cases where popn demographics are desperately skewed. Back then in Mex, we [there were a team of us making rain] were afraid that people would be easily swayed by moving speeches as opposed to solid arguments on fiscal policies. [Well we were wrong, to some extent, (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)OK.]

A one man, two votes scheme could actually be more egalitarian, as the criteria for an advantage for someone when voting is not just by how intelligent/experienced you are, but rather by how much one could have contributed to the nation. It could allow for the youths, overseas citizens, and even immigrants [not you, you alien!] to have a vote. But for those, of certain age range, who drive the economic and intellectual engines of that country, well, you can have two votes.

Or one and a half, etc, I'm not keen to optimize the statistics here, I'm not Poincaré.

Oh, and btw, Henri P supposedly flunk his IQ test . ..

[Tocsin]

Well what's wrong with a little tyranny as long it's for the common good?

If you want an answer to that question, imagine youself in a situation where an external power has made a decision which affects your life, and which you strongly diasagree with, but which has been made without any participation from you and without any consideration of your perspective, or the negative impact that the decision will have on your life... then you'll understand what is potentially wrong with "a little tyranny."

[Sliderule]

Tocsin am I going to put sarcasm incoming! before I post certain things?

[jimmywho]

I voted no, but then again I don't believe that a fully democratic society is the most efficient type of governance

[reb]

anarchy, by god! we need anarchy...to fail to achieve it is....uh....democratic. and, now that we have it, i shant complain. the u.s.s. of a., tomorrow morning, shall be repaired to the state to which it should have been all along. the talking heads have said so!

Tocsin, you said 'If you want an answer to that question, imagine youself in a situation where an external power has made a decision which affects your life, and which you strongly diasagree with, but which has been made without any participation from you and without any consideration of your perspective, or the negative impact that the decision will have on your life... then you'll understand what is potentially wrong with "a little tyranny." '

the existing 'government', bosses, teachers, parents, bullies and ex-wives have already perpetrated this scandal on me numerous times. so, i have been so used to tyranny, i now believe it to be representative....a-voting i shall go, a-voting i shall go! high ho the derrry o a-voting i shall go....
reb

[Saint]

How about an IQ test to run for office instead?

[SongofSeptember]

And please don't start with, "IQ tests only measure...." etc etc.

Damn.

I think a politics/current events quiz would be better than an IQ test. Someone who's voting should know what's going on in the world, and what the two sides stand for, at the very least.

Hm.... that sounds reasonable.

[TheLastMohican]

How about an IQ test to run for office instead?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[rewhu]

If we institute a test for voting rights can we also require an IQ test for parenthood?

[AJB]

Anytime you try to limit who participates in government decision making, whether by wealth or inteliigence or ability, you are no longer talking about democracy, and the result of removing participation in government from any group of people, for any reasons, is essentially a form of slavery.


"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case."
--Thomas Paine

+1

You hit it on the head Tocsin.





AJB added to this post, 10 minutes and 2 seconds later...

It'd be nice to prevent "lesser" people the ability to pro-create, vote, or just flat out affect my life in anyway. Nice until I became grouped with them and was stripped of my rights.

[Saint]

Yeah pretty much.

that was Re: tocsin's youtube link



also, Re: IQ Test for parents:

That's much harder ground to justify. I mean I can see why you'd like to (and I'd kinda like to), but thats kind of restricting a piece of humanity. (compared to IQ tests for office, which is just restricting a manmade position.)

IQ tests for parents would *probably* lead to a better society, but you have to ask yourself how much you're willing to restrict for what, blah blah blah.

[jikin]

also, Re: IQ Test for parents:

That's much harder ground to justify. I mean I can see why you'd like to (and I'd kinda like to), but thats kind of restricting a piece of humanity. (compared to IQ tests for office, which is just restricting a manmade position.)



Also to keep in mind on the parenting end of things: high IQ does not equal better parenting skills. Though, granted, they may have better odds of having intelligent children.

[Saint]

That's rather true; I missed that. I'm reminded of a man who started working at the local dump when he was 18 in order to pay for his child. (He's the father of a friend of mine.) He has worked at the local dump ever since. He's not too keen on many things, can't do math or touch anything electronic. He lives in a small house and doesn't do much other than garden and build terraces and such.

And in spite of his life experience (not varied) and IQ (low), he's an exceptional father. The child, my friend, has recently finished his Associates in Massage Therapy and is using massage to pay his way for his Bachelors in Biology. His father is now impossibly proud and supportive.


...of course, anecdotal evidence doesn't get me very far ;), but it certainly shows it's possible.

[whiteslate]

yeah, there's all the other Qs like EQ, AQ [adversity Quotient, anyone?] to take into consideration.

I'm reminded once again of the Gattaca/Brave New World scenario - all failures of genetic determinism - altho currently, we can only attempt genetic segregation.

Inspiring anecdote, still, the above.
My grandfather - a man I've never known - worked in the dumps.
He could speak four languages, all learnt by ear, tho - and never had the access to education like most living in the villages in my then-Third World country back in the 1930's. Was told he liked the slow pace of life - just like my father does. Both didn't attempt to achieve much other than being contented.

An uncle, dad's younger brother, was brought up in similar conditions and didn't do well academically either - but worked his way up in the corporate world. Now he's worth at least a million annually. Like grandfather, he's an excellent speaker, and very well-adored. Just add a dash of tenacity to it, and observe the difference.

Tenacity Quotience, Anyone?

[Tocsin]

Yeah pretty much.

that was Re: tocsin's youtube link.


'Scuse me? Youtube link? Moi?

Might you be meaning Last Mohican's?

[ElstonGunn]

This question is irrelevant as it applies to presidential elections in the United States, since only 538 people in this country have the right to vote in those anyways. It also assumes that "smart" people can't be idiots, too. Is the idea that if we could just get all those simpletons out of the way, us smart people could all get together and lead the country down the most logically rational path? There are smart people on every side of a divided issue. Their intelligence hasn't led them to the objectively best conclusion-- only the conclusion that they believe is the best, which is countered on the other side by another egghead's conclusion.