Should those who are not intelligent be allowed to vote?

[Estado Paulista]

I'd like to say no, but the "unsmart" are citizens with constitutionally granted rights, just like you and me. In the end, only those who are interested in politics end up voting, so this means they supposedly know at least a bit about politics.

Wait, I thought Brazil had compulsory voting, with some kind of penalty for not voting. Has that changed?

Not yet, unfortunately. But I wasn't thinking about Brazil when I wrote that.

[Shilya]

How about this: Remove voting suggestions?

Only those who care enough to be able to write in who they want to vote for count then.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

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.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

Pretty sure that got made illegal, for historical reasons in which it became... "unpopular".

Your metric is still atrocious and broadly irrelevant.

[Santa Lucania]

What deter mans intelligence? Once we say who can and can't vote then were really not a democracy anymore. Might as well just scrape the two party system and become a single party state while we're at it.

[Gauthier]

How else would the Republican base be allowed to vote?

[Imperializt Russia]

What deter mans intelligence? Once we say who can and can't vote then were really not a democracy anymore. Might as well just scrape the two party system and become a single party state while we're at it.

You say that like it's necessarily a bad thing.

[Maqo]

Why stop at just intelligent? Make sure they are voting for good reasons: an intelligent person can cast a dumb vote (eg, "because I don't want another Kenyan Muslim commie to be President").
I would LOVE for everyone to have to be politically savvy before voting. I would say the majority of people in my country aren't politically informed enough to make good decisions (hence why the Liberal Party won the last election).

However, trying to do that would only result in abuse. It has in the past, and there is no objective way to decide whether people are voting for good reasons. I might think that economic issues are the most pressing thing to be decided by the government, while others might think the only good reason to vote for a party is their environmental policies.


If you really want to have an IQ test before voting... try to pass these tests. They're easy - they determine if you have a 5th grade reading level. Tell me how well you do.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/20 ... siana.html

Remember, one wrong answer proves you're black illiterate and can't vote.
Would you be comfortable with anyone giving you that test?

[Tiesabre]

I do not like the idea of tests or things that can be used against the less intelligent to stop them from voting. Such a thing will do nothing but result in rampant abuse by the powers at be.

[Imperializt Russia]

I do not like the idea of tests or things that can be used against the less intelligent to stop them from voting. Such a thing will do nothing but result in rampant abuse by the powers at be.

I consider the manipulation of the uninformed through scare tactics and outright lying in an unrestricted voting system to be a rampant abuse already.

[0507011209200118090114]

The corresponding definition of "intelligence" by the state would very likely be a tool of exploitation and arbitrary discrimination.

Additionally, if individuals deemed (in an inherently subjective manner) as "unintelligent" by the federal/state government are barred from voting, they are not being properly represented.

[Zaolat]

I think it'd be best to change the phrase "not intelligent" to "non-politically educated" or something to that effect. As it stands with the current context, it's confusing and looks bad.

[Trelso]

I do not like the idea of tests or things that can be used against the less intelligent to stop them from voting. Such a thing will do nothing but result in rampant abuse by the powers at be.

I consider the manipulation of the uninformed through scare tactics and outright lying in an unrestricted voting system to be a rampant abuse already.

You act as if the informed aren't just as easily manipulated through scare tactics and outright lying.

[Imperializt Russia]

I consider the manipulation of the uninformed through scare tactics and outright lying in an unrestricted voting system to be a rampant abuse already.

You act as if the informed aren't just as easily manipulated through scare tactics and outright lying.

If they are, then they're clearly not informed enough to realise when they're being lied to and manipulated.

[Independent Canterbury]

Yes.

[Trelso]

You act as if the informed aren't just as easily manipulated through scare tactics and outright lying.

If they are, then they're clearly not informed enough to realise when they're being lied to and manipulated.

Which doesn't change the fact that they would be classified as 'intelligent' under any refusal of voting rights.

[Agritum]

I'd think that an intelligence test for political candidates would be better.

[Destrovia]

Intelligence could mean anything the way you put it. For instance I could not know how to make some really fancy French food and, since you didn't describe what you meant exactly by intelligence, I wouldn't be able to vote.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Also, intelligence doesn't necessarily make a good politician or voter. History's nastiest tyrants have been quite intelligent and cunning people (mainly because fools don't tend to last in politics very long), and likewise, many who helped them to power were highly intelligent as well.

[L Ron Cupboard]

If you could measure intelligence in a meaningful way, I would bet that the intelligence distribution of voters for any of the candidates in an election would be pretty close to a normal distribution. So removing those who scored low on intelligence would make absolutely no difference to the result. Besides not working, it would open up the democratic system to massive abuses. There would be endless arguments on where the cut-off point should be, like there are over electoral boundaries. All in all not just a bad idea, but a really fucking stupid one.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

No. There's no way at all to define it without being a total bell end.

[Purpelia]

I am not a fan of these "democracies" and "voting" but I will say this. Any functioning democracy that attempts to restrict voting the intelligent will find it self rapidly running out of voters. It's just so trivial to take any such rule and use it to exclude whom ever you don't like that in the end everyone will be excluding everyone and you will find your self in a better form of government.

[CTALNH]

Wait how can you find out who is intelligent or not?'

My cat is intelligent can it vote?

[Vyvland]

It would be a better idea to ensure people are taught in school the relevant skills or knowledge one deems to be necessary for voting.

[CTALNH]

It would be a better idea to ensure people are taught in school the relevant skills or knowledge one deems to be necessary for voting.

That cannot be taught that can only be learned through experience and age.