Dumb people shouldn't vote!?

[Saiwania]

Dumb people have to be allowed to vote if dumb candidates like Donald Trump are allowed to run for office.

[Community Values]

While I happen to agree with your opinion of Trump, there are a great many folks who think very similarly terrible things about Hillary. So who decides who's dumb without any trace of bias?

Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia are easy ways to spot someone who is lacking in intelligence.

I can tell you about many smart people that were racist, sexist, transphobic, and homophobic.

[Saiwania]

I can tell you many smart people that were racist, sexist, transphobic, and homophobic.

It depends a great deal on how skilled they are with the use of coded language and manipulation in general. A Palpatine only comes along every so often.

[Minivanistan]

I can tell you many smart people that were racist, sexist, transphobic, and homophobic.

It depends a great deal on how skilled they are with the use of coded language and manipulation in general. A Palpatine only comes along every so often.

And not from the ideology you would imagine.
Identity politics is such a tricky beast to herd, which is why you put one group in that pasture, another group in another pasture, and so forth while advertising the enterprise as one big inclusive farm hoping no one notices all of the barbed wire subdividing the place.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Oh my, OP made a poll.

[Imperializt Russia]

Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia are easy ways to spot someone who is lacking in intelligence.

I can tell you about many smart people that were racist, sexist, transphobic, and homophobic.

Many of them were more products of their time than anything else.

[Gauthier]

Oh let's see... OP calling for voting tests.

I wonder how that could work out...

My stance on voting largely comes from the late great George Carlin
(Image)

that being said, I see democracy as an experiment. It's quite fascinating to see what happens when anyone who's a citizen, regardless of contribution to society(which indeed does vary depending on who you ask) or lack thereof. All inevitable corruption aside(Fate of Empires and such), is it better to let the people have a say? I would argue yes despite my incredible cynicism. Because the chances of it working outweigh the lack of democracy.

But of course, nothing good lasts for very long, or stays good.

George Carlin was long dead before Donald Trump became the Republican nominee for President.

[Aelex]

Wanting to restrict people ability's to voice their opinion because of their perceived "lack of intelligence" is the best way to get some sweet karma back in your face as soon you're yourself not deemed "worthy enough", and don't kid yourself that's gonna happen sooner than later.

[Xerographica]

Alternative:

Instead of voting for a person, let the computer present a little quiz with "what is your stance on..."; and then offer the answers the participating politicians gave - without mentioning who said what so that people are not swayed by a person or party name but by his or her arguments. After 15 or so questions, the party whose viewpoints correspond the most with that of the voter gets the vote.

The results might be interesting.

This is really good! But rather than sticking the voter with the closest party... I think it would be a lot more fun to force the parties to conform to the answers. Each unique set of answers would be its own party! How much fun would that be? I actually did something like this a few years back... Self Ownership Survey. It was primarily for libertarians though.

It's fun to try and imagine what the optimal set of questions would be for the population as a whole. With one question...

1. Should abortion be legal? (Y/N)

The entire country, more or less, would be divided into two parties...

Party 1: Y
Party 2: N

When another question was added...

2. Should taxes be raised? (Y/N)

The country would then be divided into four parties...

Party 1: YN
Party 2: YY
Party 3: NY
Party 4: NN

How many parties could there be with 10 questions? How many parties would there be?

[The Shady Looking Vukmiri Delegates]

If idiots weren't allowed to vote Hillary wouldn't have made it this far.

Democracy is the core of the western world, taking that away blatantly weakens the strength of the west and it's core values and beliefs. Democracy is a basic human right, taking that away is going to raise a step in the Totalitarian world we slowly devolve into.

[Imperializt Russia]

idiots weren't allowed to vote Hillary wouldn't have made it this far.

Cute.

[Gauthier]

If idiots weren't allowed to vote Hillary wouldn't have made it this far.

More like Trump wouldn't be the Republican Nominee.

[Xerographica]

Well we're on a new topic now, so I guess both Skrill and the 4th graders passed on coasianism...

Maybe because it's stupid and even fourth graders can see that.

I want to start a thread on the topic but I'm not sure when would be the best time to do so. Last week the 4th graders used coasianism to determine which book they are going to read. Today they used it to choose which of their classmates will be in charge of their IRS. So not only is the class implementing coasianism... they are also implementing pragmatarianism. The kids who are compensated will be obligated to allocate a percentage of their compensation to the class/school goods which match their preferences. This means choosing a student to be in charge of each of the different "departments".

The students plan on using coasianism to choose a class...

- name
- flag
- song
- motto
- plant
- mammal
- bird
- fish
- insect

Should I create a thread now to share the preliminary results... or should I wait until there are more results to share?

[Alvalero]

If idiots weren't allowed to vote Hillary wouldn't have made it this far.

More like Trump wouldn't be the Republican Nominee.

Neither would be a nominee. Both are equally incompetent and neither should be running a country.

[Gauthier]

More like Trump wouldn't be the Republican Nominee.

Neither would be a nominee. Both are equally incompetent and neither should be running a country.

Oh, that edgy nihilistic "They're Both Exactly the Same" false equivalence.

[Alvalero]

Neither would be a nominee. Both are equally incompetent and neither should be running a country.

Oh, that edgy nihilistic "They're Both Exactly the Same" false equivalence.

False equivalence? These are the two most hated candidates in history for a very good reason. Ones an unfiltered baboon and the other is a pathological liar who doubles down in the face of video evidence. Keep thinking what you think because either way you'll get the idiot you deserve running the US for the next 4 years.
Also I said equally incompetent, not exactly the same. You can have two different types of idiot who are unable to do the same thing.

[Minivanistan]

Neither would be a nominee. Both are equally incompetent and neither should be running a country.

Oh, that edgy nihilistic "They're Both Exactly the Same" false equivalence.

It is neither edgy, nor nihilistic, but just plain intellectual laziness.
So is the refusal of either's supporters to be wholly objective about their respective candidate's character.
But that is the ugly public side of electioneering. The candidates polarize their supporters with their rhetoeical talking points, and the supporters oblige this with wholly partisan adoration for their candidate, while heaping vitriol upon the opponent.
You would think that at least the press would stand back and at least disseminate an objective vetting of the candidates ( ), but they are instead fanning the flames and aggravating the mud slinging by handing out pales of it where they can.
Thank God that the actual mechanics of the election is not as mobocratic as the citizen's participation, or we would be well and truly <redacted>.

[Imperializt Russia]

More like Trump wouldn't be the Republican Nominee.

Neither would be a nominee. Both are equally incompetent and neither should be running a country.

Yeah, Hillary's not incompetent.

[The Two Jerseys]

Maybe because it's stupid and even fourth graders can see that.

I want to start a thread on the topic but I'm not sure when would be the best time to do so. Last week the 4th graders used coasianism to determine which book they are going to read. Today they used it to choose which of their classmates will be in charge of their IRS. So not only is the class implementing coasianism... they are also implementing pragmatarianism. The kids who are compensated will be obligated to allocate a percentage of their compensation to the class/school goods which match their preferences. This means choosing a student to be in charge of each of the different "departments".

The students plan on using coasianism to choose a class...

- name
- flag
- song
- motto
- plant
- mammal
- bird
- fish
- insect

Should I create a thread now to share the preliminary results... or should I wait until there are more results to share?

But do they actually have the choice to not participate?

[Des-Bal]

I'm trying to think of a good reason that a 13 year old shouldn't be allowed to vote and I'm drawing blank.

[Xerographica]

I want to start a thread on the topic but I'm not sure when would be the best time to do so. Last week the 4th graders used coasianism to determine which book they are going to read. Today they used it to choose which of their classmates will be in charge of their IRS. So not only is the class implementing coasianism... they are also implementing pragmatarianism. The kids who are compensated will be obligated to allocate a percentage of their compensation to the class/school goods which match their preferences. This means choosing a student to be in charge of each of the different "departments".

The students plan on using coasianism to choose a class...

- name
- flag
- song
- motto
- plant
- mammal
- bird
- fish
- insect

Should I create a thread now to share the preliminary results... or should I wait until there are more results to share?

But do they actually have the choice to not participate?

Today, when the class used coasianism to choose which student will be in charge of their IRS, three of students allocated 0 pennies. So the students can choose between spending and saving.

[Gauthier]

I'm trying to think of a good reason that a 13 year old shouldn't be allowed to vote and I'm drawing blank.

They'll vote depending on which campaign headquarters has the better Pokemon.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm trying to think of a good reason that a 13 year old shouldn't be allowed to vote and I'm drawing blank.

Because realistically, the majority haven't even been exposed to political discourse or its implications.

I support extending the voting age to 16 in the UK because compulsory education ends at 16; 16 is when you're beginning to become emotionally mature (beginning); you can legally have a job and pay tax, and have a debit account in your own name; and you will begin planning for your adult life, especially university. You can legally have sex, join the armed forces and drive a motor vehicle (scooter licences at 16, car and full bike licences are only available from age 17).
This was mostly due to being unable to vote in the 2010 election in the UK and becoming massively soured to politics as a result.

[Forsher]

I'm trying to think of a good reason that a 13 year old shouldn't be allowed to vote and I'm drawing blank.

If you could leave school at 13, you'd have a point. The reality is that while it may be somewhat arbitrary to have a school-leaving age of 16, it does mean that we have an age by which we've decided that someone has been educated sufficiently to participate independently in society.* 13 year olds are also, to my knowledge, utterly dependent which means that while you might have, say, a 21-year old who doesn't work and doesn't pay any bills and just lives at home, the 21 year old is, for instance, able to (legally) be "home alone", drive, smoke, drink etc. so is not utterly dependent despite sharing many key characteristics.

*Although this doesn't mean they've learnt everything that we've tried to teach them.

[Des-Bal]

They'll vote depending on which campaign headquarters has the better Pokemon.

They'll be in good company with the people who vote based on who's the tallest and who has the nicest hair. I can't think of a single thing that a 13 year old can't understand about the positions they're voting for that the average adult 1) understands and 2) cares about.