Should those who are not intelligent be allowed to vote?

[Seaxeland]

No would should be allowed to vote, voting is a waste of time and can easily be corrupted.

But if people have to vote, only the intelligent and informed should be allowed to vote.

[Osarius]

This was what I was hinting at with my children comment. Isn't this what we do when we say children can't vote?

That's a bit different. Children aren't politically aware.

Some are. And not all adults are.

[Magna Libero]

I think an idiot is one who:
1) doesn't know about basic geography and especially the countries that your country has invaded
2) doesn't care to know about economics and doesn't try to know the consequences of bad economic policies
3) is too naive if the government tries to manipulate its citizens
Etc
The classical definition is "one who doesn't understand politics".

So, I think idiots should be allowed to vote

[Hladgos]

Someone would have to come up with a legitimate and unbiased test to prove relative intelligence.

[United commonwealth of ayrshire]

Of course they should be allowed.
It's the job of the candidate to educate the voter abput politics through campaigns in order to get votes.
Leaving some people politically unaware is their failure.

[Ifreann]

I personally think "not intelligent", in the USA, should be classified as anyone who:

Doesn't know what 2+2 is
doesn't know who the first president is
doesn't know who the current President, and Vice President are
can't find the USA on a world map
Doesn't know what the 1st amendment is (it's the amendment that provides Freedom of Speech, Religion, Assembly, and Press)

Not very ambitious standard. I think we can do better.

Doesn't know what 2+2 is

Doesn't know how to derive "1+1=2" from first principles.

doesn't know who the first president is

Can't explain the popular misconception that George Washington was America's first president.

doesn't know who the current President, and Vice President are

Can't set out the presidential line of succession down to the Secretary of State for Agriculture.

can't find the USA on a world map

Can't draw the USA onto a political map from which it has been removed.

Doesn't know what the 1st amendment is (it's the amendment that provides Freedom of Speech, Religion, Assembly, and Press)

Doesn't know what the 3rd, 13th, 19th and 27th Amendments to the US Constitution are.

But no, seriously, testing for arbitrary factoids is anti-democratic. The standards for voting should be as low as possible.

---

Why ?

When you are feeling ill, do you ask 100 random people what to do and go with the majority answer ?
What if 90% says "get an aspirine"; while the 2% of your sample group that consists of medical professionals say "go to the hospital asap" ? Do you listen to the 90 or the 2 ?

If you pick the opinion of the professionals there, why should politicians not do the same where the running of the country is concerned - meaning theyshould discard the votes of uninformed people ?

If politicians should disregard the votes of uninformed, should not doctors disregard the wishes of uninformed patients? If we're going to be denying rights to people based on what they know, we're surely not going to stop at the right to vote.

---

I don't believe in democracy to begin with. The simple fact of you being allowed to express your opinion by voting doesn't at all mean that this opinion will actually be of any consequence.

I'd be willing to support a democracy that made military service a pre-requisite for voting and running for office. A leader who has the authority to command others to risk their lives for the nation must first know himself what being commanded to risk his own is like. Likewise, only someone prepared and willing to stand up for his political decisions and lay down his life for them if necessary should be entitled to make any at all.

Why? Fanatical devotion to one's politics does not make them better.

[Luziyca]

No, because Party X's candidate could bribe doctors to diagnose Party Y with a mental condition that makes them unable to vote, enabling Party X to win.

[Ashmoria]

So NSG, should those who are not intelligent be allowed to vote.

A CNN columnist says No:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/12/g ... rant.vote/

New Jersey says yes:
http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/id ... d-to-vote/

My opinion on the issue:
First of all, laws against those who are "not intelligent" voting should not be used against someone for their political identity, or race, for that would probably lead to modern Jim Crow laws. However I don't believe the uninformed should be allowed to vote. As far as I know, those not intelligent, sometimes referred to by the term "idiot", which basically means, in the context of law, someone who is insane or mentally incompetent ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot#United_States_law ). I personally think "not intelligent", in the USA, should be classified as anyone who:

Doesn't know what 2+2 is
doesn't know who the first president is
doesn't know who the current President, and Vice President are
can't find the USA on a world map
Doesn't know what the 1st amendment is (it's the amendment that provides Freedom of Speech, Religion, Assembly, and Press)

That's my belief on the issue. But what say of you NSG? What do you think on the issue?

no

the vast majority of people are plenty smart enough to be able to cast a rational vote. those few who are not (people with some kind of diagnosable retardation) but still vote are not going to sway any election.

[The Sotoan Union]

So NSG, should those who are not intelligent be allowed to vote.

A CNN columnist says No:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/12/g ... rant.vote/

New Jersey says yes:
http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/id ... d-to-vote/

My opinion on the issue:
First of all, laws against those who are "not intelligent" voting should not be used against someone for their political identity, or race, for that would probably lead to modern Jim Crow laws. However I don't believe the uninformed should be allowed to vote. As far as I know, those not intelligent, sometimes referred to by the term "idiot", which basically means, in the context of law, someone who is insane or mentally incompetent ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot#United_States_law ). I personally think "not intelligent", in the USA, should be classified as anyone who:

Doesn't know what 2+2 is
doesn't know who the first president is
doesn't know who the current President, and Vice President are
can't find the USA on a world map
Doesn't know what the 1st amendment is (it's the amendment that provides Freedom of Speech, Religion, Assembly, and Press)

That's my belief on the issue. But what say of you NSG? What do you think on the issue?

no

the vast majority of people are plenty smart enough to be able to cast a rational vote. those few who are not (people with some kind of diagnosable retardation) but still vote are not going to sway any election.

Yeah about 95% of the population has roughly the same level of intelligence. It's not really going to change a vote.

[Viritica]

Everyone should be allowed to vote. You can't discriminate against someone based on their intelligence.

The unintelligent and the misinformed are citizens just like the rest of us. They are human beings that have the same rights afforded to them as everyone else.

[Ostroeuropa]

As a general rule, i'd say if you are smart enough to know it is election day, to wait in line without breaking laws, know how to use a pencil or touch-screen, and are intelligent enough to understand that you can't just draw stupid shit on the ballot and instead need to mark it with an X, you have passed the required intelligence level.

Intelligence is not that important when it comes to voting. What is important is cultural awareness and understanding what is going on in the country. Under that rationale, the rich have far less of a claim to the right to vote than the poor do, but I wouldn't take it from them.

If you have two candidates, one advocating we build nuclear power plants and explaining the process in detail but you are too dumb to understand it, and another candidate who is arguing that we need to do something about the outbreak of corpses littering the streets, you don't need to be intelligent to understand which is the most rational candidate. You don't necessarily need to understand what "Nuclear" even is. You just need to know that that whole corpses thing is real, it's happening, and this candidate wants to do something about it.

It's for that reason that most modern candidates in the US and the UK with their neoliberal fantasy land economics should be viewed poorly. They tend not to actually discuss things related to the real world. There is a reason voter turnout is low.

[Estormo]

No, they shouldn't. It gets horrible candidates elected. Hollande, Obama, etc.

[Imperializt Russia]

That's what I say as well. What is the point of having the voice of every idiot, right wing lunatic, religious maniac, anti science propagandist, capitalist pig etc. be heard? You don't need a million voices. You need one, but a good one.

So, all we need to do now is build a super-intelligent AI and declare it Emperor of mankind?

If you can make an AI that cool, sure.
For now, I'll settle with committees.

[The USOT]

Your metric for determining "intelligence" seems rather arbitrary.

I'm talking about here in the US, for who should be allowed to vote. I personally think people should take a test before they are allowed to vote.

I am sure the point has been made by now, but you missed the point entirely.

There is no one "intellgence" and usually people will be intelligent in regards to certain things, unintelligent in regards to others. Einstein had an analogy in regards to this, with people who imagine there being one form of intelligence being the kind of people who call fish weak because they cannot climb trees, or dogs blind because they cant see certain colours.
The point of the analogy is that somebody can be incredibly intelligent in certain areas but poor in others. Casing point being Stephen Hawking who (if memory serves me correctly) whilst being a genious has had a poor record of using that intelligence to keep good relations with his family. This being the same Stephen Hawking who wonderfully uses the philosophical system of science, yet believes philosophy is dead.

Your education is also a major factor. I for instance know somebody who is a complete genious but their early education did not factor in how best to educate her. As a result, she thought she was stupid for years untill she was discovered and given the proper help, with her abilities now flourishing.

[Murkwood]

This is a tricky issue. If we start excluding one group, a slippery slope shall begin. I say, let anyone who is an American citizen and isn't a felon and is over 18 vote.

[Divair2]

Someone would have to come up with a legitimate and unbiased test to prove relative intelligence.

Which is, of course, impossible.

[Nervium]

I believe everyone has the right to vote, indiscriminate of intelligence.
And if you vote right-wing or anything I don't like, I'll hate you for it.

[Murkwood]

I believe everyone has the right to vote, indiscriminate of intelligence.
And if you vote right-wing or anything I don't like, I'll hate you for it.

Hate? That's pretty strong.

[L Ron Cupboard]

No, they shouldn't. It gets horrible candidates elected. Hollande, Obama, etc.

Given that those candidates were elected in a secret ballot, and that there is no data on the intelligence of the voters, how about you show us what data you derived that idea from?

[Nervium]

I believe everyone has the right to vote, indiscriminate of intelligence.
And if you vote right-wing or anything I don't like, I'll hate you for it.

Hate? That's pretty strong.

No it isn't.

[Nervium]

That's what I say as well. What is the point of having the voice of every idiot, right wing lunatic, religious maniac, anti science propagandist, capitalist pig etc. be heard? You don't need a million voices. You need one, but a good one.

So, all we need to do now is build a super-intelligent AI and declare it Emperor of mankind?

Or you could just instate me as Emperor of Everything Ever.

God, I always wanted to pretend to be megalomaniac white single teenage fascist trans-humanist.

[Greater-London]

No. Everyone should be allowed to vote providing they fit the following criteria. They are are a legal adult, they aren't in prison and they aren't in a mental health institution. Other than that then I think your fair game.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

Intelligence is unquantifiable, therefore, it's a ridiculous measure to place at the polls.

[The Nuclear Fist]

No would should be allowed to vote, voting is a waste of time and can easily be corrupted.

But if people have to vote, only the intelligent and informed should be allowed to vote.

So your vote disappears first, then?

[Angleter]

Of course they should be allowed to vote. It should set off enough alarm bells that people who want to disenfranchise the 'unintelligent' or 'uninformed' almost always see themselves as among the 'intelligent' and 'informed', and believe that such a change would benefit their favoured politician/party (or ruin the career of someone they really don't like).