NationStates

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?

PLEASE NO:
Trolling
Baiting
Flaming
Spamming
Trollnaming
Any other illegal stuff

No

Your metric for determining "intelligence" seems rather arbitrary.

Neoconstantius wrote: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.

People should have to take a test to see if they are eligible in political theory. Perhaps this would prevent things like idiotic politicians being elected.

(I was not referencing Obama...or was I?)

Maybe they should, but maybe not....

Any kind of requirement for people to be "intelligent" in order to vote would necessarily also require the creation of some entity with the power to decide who is or isn't "intelligent" (or the giving of this power to an existing entity, like Congress/Parliament).

Needless to say, that power would start being abused after about 5 seconds.

So this is an astoundingly bad idea.

Is there a reason why voting could not consist of filling in a questionnaire on the computer about your political opinions and wishes of about 100 questions; after which you will get the three parties that most accurately reflect your position and you can pick one ? Aside from privacy issues of course.

Then at least people would have some vague clue what they are voting for

Anyone should be allowed to vote.

The criteria for being "intelligent" would probably either be unfair and subjective, or just too rare or specialized for the average person to vote.

"Intelligence" is hard to define in this scenario, and if such a rule was made it would make less fair and less accurate voting results. It wouldn't necessarily represent many people, and could be easily exploited.

We should abolish voting, and let the minorities that want to do different things do different things.

Everyone should be allowed to vote.

On a side note, if someone fails your requirements then the school system has failed them completely.

And wouldn't that logic mean that some really smart teenagers would be included?

I'm thinking of a flip: Make the POLITICIANS have a minimum standard of intelligence to run for candidacy. That way, idiots still get their voice in politics, it just reduces their influence from the equation due to non-idiotic people in our government.

Constantinopolis wrote:Any kind of requirement for people politicians to be "intelligent" in order to vote run would necessarily also require the creation of some entity with the power to decide who is or isn't "intelligent" (or the giving of this power to an existing entity, like Congress/Parliament).

Needless to say, that power would start being abused after about 5 seconds.

So this is an astoundingly bad idea.

Yes, it would be abused, if it were controlled by a HUMAN. However, design an automated system free from opinion or other human influence (or as close as you can get) to determine intelligence & you're good to go.

If there was a means of actually defining what "intelligent" in this context means, than maybe they shouldn't be.

But since there won't be a way to make that happen, yes they should be allowed.

Johto and Kanto wrote:Anyone should be allowed to vote.

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 ?

Anyone who is not classified as having a serious mental impairment should be allowed to vote.

The Neo-Confederate States of America wrote: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)

Interesting. I don't agree with this for practicality reasons mostly, to be honest. But it does raise an interesting question.

Would you also suggest opening voting up to people who fulfill this criteria but not others, for example, intelligent children?

The Alma Mater wrote:

Johto and Kanto wrote:Anyone should be allowed to vote.

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 not where the running of the country is concerned ?

A group of professionals choosing who governs an entire population is a bit different than that, since it's not allowing everyone's opinions to be heard.

Also, one of my main issues is that the definition of "intelligent" is somewhat difficult to determine for this.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Johto and Kanto wrote:Anyone should be allowed to vote.

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 not where the running of the country is concerned ?

Your generally principle is good, but your application is flawed. People who score high on IQ tests are neither experts in the field of ethics nor of national policy. If we should be deferring to anyone's opinions, it should be trusted experts in the relevent fields.

People should be informed, not deemed "stupid" and forbidden from voting. Democracy would probably work better if the voting population was more intelligent, but restricting the right to vote in this way is restricting the right to what little personal power people have. Sure, people might make poor decisions when voting, but the alternative is authoritarianism.

If our political system was free of corruption, I could see your point, but as corrupt as the US government tends to be, any new requirement (in my opinion) should be on the politician not the voter.

In theory, this kind of has careful nods of support from me until one looks at practice and realizes that it's incredibly likely to be abused...

...let's say that I'm not frustrated enough about the decisions my countrymen vote for.

Again - theory good. Practice says that the morons it'd be meant to keep out according to my requirements would twist it to keep out everyone else, thus making it tripleminusgood.

Margno wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:
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 not where the running of the country is concerned ?

Your generally principle is good, but your application is flawed. People who score high on IQ tests are neither experts in the field of ethics nor of national policy. If we should be deferring to anyone's opinions, it should be trusted experts in the relevent fields.

True, but I was responding to the "anyone should be able to vote" comment, not to the "IQ tests are needed for voting" idea from the OP. Sorry for being unclear.

Do note btw that the doctor analogy does not forbid the 98% to vote but that it suggests that their vote should be ignored.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Johto and Kanto wrote:Anyone should be allowed to vote.

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 not where the running of the country is concerned ?

Because the nature of the question is different. When it comes to running the country, you're not asking those random 100 people what's good for you, you're asking them what's good for them. That's what voting is (or should be): asking people to choose the political option that is best for themselves.

Informed yes.
Intelligence no.
Being required to stay abreast of current events could be helpful.
Intelligence is bad because stupid people can still be amazingly perceptive.