Should those who are not intelligent be allowed to vote?

[Purpelia]

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.

No, not really. The only skill you need to vote intelligently is critical thinking. As in the intellectual mindset to question what people tell you, look things up your self and evaluate them further than just believing what you see on TV. A decent educational system like those in Europe tends to instill those values before you reach high school. Or at least tries to with varying degrees of success.

[Republic of Trollandia]

If we find an acceptable measure for "unintelligence", then they shouldn't

[Great Nepal]

Sure, assuming you produce a non invasive procedure to put electrode in peoples brain which will then produce an accurate numerical number which is produced independent to the assessors actions in standardised manner so as to avoid bias. Once that is produced, anyone with below average quotient can be removed from voting registry.

[Purpelia]

Sure, assuming you produce a non invasive procedure to put electrode in peoples brain which will then produce an accurate numerical number which is produced independent to the assessors actions in standardised manner so as to avoid bias. Once that is produced, anyone with below average quotient can be removed from voting registry.

I am not sure what that would achieve. You would still be producing a number that means absolutely nothing since the unit of measurement is not based on any universally constant values. Seriously, as far as anything but broad statistics goes measuring IQ, even with perfect accuracy is about as useful as measuring how many apples you can stuff in your mouth.

[Republic of Greater America]

Just ban voting.

[Republic of Trollandia]

Just ban voting.

And democracy. Or even better, create a Communist Democracy. There's democracy alright, if you vote for me.

[Purpelia]

Just ban voting.

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.

[Great Nepal]

Sure, assuming you produce a non invasive procedure to put electrode in peoples brain which will then produce an accurate numerical number which is produced independent to the assessors actions in standardised manner so as to avoid bias. Once that is produced, anyone with below average quotient can be removed from voting registry.

I am not sure what that would achieve. You would still be producing a number that means absolutely nothing since the unit of measurement is not based on any universally constant values. Seriously, as far as anything but broad statistics goes measuring IQ, even with perfect accuracy is about as useful as measuring how many apples you can stuff in your mouth.

An accurate test would produce a standard and true value for intelligence of the assessed based presumably on some kind of analysis of neurons or electrical signals rather than producing arbitrary number.

[Great Nepal]

Just ban voting.

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?

[Purpelia]

An accurate test would produce a standard and true value for intelligence of the assessed based presumably on some kind of analysis of neurons or electrical signals rather than producing arbitrary number.

The problem with that is how to measure intelligence. As in what intelligence even is. Is it a function of being good with math? Is the person who is a brilliant artist but completely gullible and savvy when it comes to dealing with people stupid or brilliant? And what interpretation if any would you use that actually reflects on the persons fitness for voting?

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?

Pretty much. Either this or in a slightly more realistic world a tight bureaucratic technocracy where the ones who prove them self to be capable are put into power whilst at the same time having their actions strangled by the system to ensure they do not abuse it.

Or in an actually functional and realistic world just a decent dictator who knows that keeping his people happy is good for keeping him self in power. You know, bread and circuses.

[Faschist Deutsch Reich]

I would like to say that these people who are "idiots" should not be allowed to vote, but to be honest it would be unfair if they were denied this simple right. Ok, these people might be utter "space cadets" (my choice of words, nvm) and not be able to contribute much to society, but all people should be treated as equal regardless of their race, social status, ability or intelligence.

Let them vote... as long as they are able to fill in a sheet of paper and decide which candidate they want to vote for.

[Purpelia]

I would like to say that these people who are "idiots" should not be allowed to vote, but to be honest it would be unfair if they were denied this simple right. Ok, these people might be utter "space cadets" (my choice of words, nvm) and not be able to contribute much to society, but all people should be treated as equal regardless of their race, social status, ability or intelligence.

Let them vote... as long as they are able to fill in a sheet of paper and decide which candidate they want to vote for.

My cat can do that by stepping in a pool of ink and walking all over the paper sheet...

[Great Nepal]

An accurate test would produce a standard and true value for intelligence of the assessed based presumably on some kind of analysis of neurons or electrical signals rather than producing arbitrary number.

The problem with that is how to measure intelligence. As in what intelligence even is. Is it a function of being good with math? Is the person who is a brilliant artist but completely gullible and savvy when it comes to dealing with people stupid or brilliant? And what interpretation if any would you use that actually reflects on the persons fitness for voting?

Hence we shouldn't focus on application of intelligence such as painting, technology etc but on potential of intelligence. I mean, there must exist something in composition of human brain (my guess would be something like chemical concentration, strength of electrical signals, density of neurons etc) which determines why some people are naturally more clever while some are naturally thick as stone. This hypothetical system would first need to isolate what factor(s) causes this difference and then find an accurate, independent and passively measure these factors to produce an overall score.
As for its relevance of voting, my assumption is that a intelligent person as determined will be able to look and weight the evidence and reach a sound conclusion hence reducing the effect of scaremongering such as anti vaccination campaigns; and since politicians can't pander to the lowest common denominator, we end up where laws are passed based on its assessed effects rather than on partisan grounds or on what makes it sound good on headlines; essentially aim (although rather unlikely to be achieved) is to result in a governance similar to that super intelligent AI but within modern framework.

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

Pretty much. Either this or in a slightly more realistic world a tight bureaucratic technocracy where the ones who prove them self to be capable are put into power whilst at the same time having their actions strangled by the system to ensure they do not abuse it.

That still suffers from similar problem though; ensuring neutral assessment of merit. I mean unless you take out human element, there is not going to be a person who has a present opinion on a issue hence now instead of focusing on appealing general populace, politicians will now attempt to appeal to the bureaucracy who assesses them.

Or in an actually functional and realistic world just a decent dictator who knows that keeping his people happy is good for keeping him self in power. You know, bread and circuses.

How do you ensure next dictator is of same nature or that dictator continues to be selfless for remainder of his life....

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Just ban voting.

I vote to keep voting.

[Divair2]

Yes.

[Shove Piggy Shove]

Every citizen and legal resident should be allowed to vote. Including children and felons.

I agree with this for elections and the like, however for some referenda I think it could be beneficial to implement some kind of comprehension test for the issue being voted on. I say this because when we had the AV referendum, someone I worked with said they voted against it because they didn't understand it - this really pissed me off; if you don't understand the question, then how can you answer it?

[Purpelia]

Hence we shouldn't focus on application of intelligence such as painting, technology etc but on potential of intelligence. I mean, there must exist something in composition of human brain (my guess would be something like chemical concentration, strength of electrical signals, density of neurons etc) which determines why some people are naturally more clever while some are naturally thick as stone. This hypothetical system would first need to isolate what factor(s) causes this difference and then find an accurate, independent and passively measure these factors to produce an overall score.

The problem is as I said that there is no such thing as naturally more clever across the field. All people are more clever in some things but less in others. You could theoretically isolate the top and bottom 1% or something with your test (the Stephen Hawkings and the mental retards who newer progress past the mental age of 5) but for most others it would be meaningless.

As for its relevance of voting, my assumption is that a intelligent person as determined will be able to look and weight the evidence and reach a sound conclusion hence reducing the effect of scaremongering such as anti vaccination campaigns; and since politicians can't pander to the lowest common denominator, we end up where laws are passed based on its assessed effects rather than on partisan grounds or on what makes it sound good on headlines; essentially aim (although rather unlikely to be achieved) is to result in a governance similar to that super intelligent AI but within modern framework.

Intelligence really has nothing to do with it. Well assuming you are not severely mentally retarded or something. What matters is being thought critical thinking at an early age so that you know and believe you should use what you have in terms of intellect. Most of the stupid people you will meet in life are not stupid because their brain is weak but because they have not been forcefully indoctrinated into thinking.

That still suffers from similar problem though; ensuring neutral assessment of merit. I mean unless you take out human element, there is not going to be a person who has a present opinion on a issue hence now instead of focusing on appealing general populace, politicians will now attempt to appeal to the bureaucracy who assesses them.

Hence me noting that it's only slightly more realistic.

How do you ensure next dictator is of same nature or that dictator continues to be selfless for remainder of his life....

By having him raised and brainwashed educated in the right direction from birth?

[Fluerian]

Terrible idea it would get abused.

[Vissegaard]

Nobody is intelligent enough to be allowed to vote.

[The Sotoan Union]

I feel like not intelligent is entirely too subjective.

[Sanguinea]

Just ban voting.

Well, at least that wouldn't be hypocritical. There's no point in a "democracy" in which we designate who, out of a population capable of willing selecting their own voting preferences, shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Vissegaard]

Just ban voting.

Well, at least that wouldn't be hypocritical. There's no point in a "democracy" in which we designate who, out of a population capable of willing selecting their own voting preferences, shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Amen.

[Divair2]

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.

No.

[Osarius]

Continuing from my previous post: The only possible argument against allowing people to vote is that they're too stupid to know what is best for their own good. This may indeed be the case for some people, but there is no objective way to determine who those people are, and in any case this kind of attitude is incredibly patronizing and elitist.

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

[Sanguinea]

Continuing from my previous post: The only possible argument against allowing people to vote is that they're too stupid to know what is best for their own good. This may indeed be the case for some people, but there is no objective way to determine who those people are, and in any case this kind of attitude is incredibly patronizing and elitist.

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.