Should those who are not intelligent be allowed to vote?

[Ixzara]

i have reached the conclusion that those who wish to restrict the vote of others, should lose the vote themselves, as they have proved they are unqualified for the vote themselves.

It looks like you can't vote then.

At the rate things are going on this thread, the only people that will be allowed to vote will be Jesus and Bart Simpson. And even then, Jesus would have to provide proof that he is a US citizen, if he were to vote in TX.

[MERIZoC]

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?

I disagree with the OP's standard for intelligence. Whether or not a voter knows who the first president was, won't affect their vote. 2+2 is very arbitrary, something everyone knows, and again, doesn't matter. The other ones, maybe. But I think better criteria would be knowing basic scientific facts, like the shape of the earth, or evolution, or climate change. However, I don't think the whole thing is a good idea at all, and would just be a way for the majority to oppress the minority.

[Forster Keys]

Too right. And they also often degenerated into oligarchies or indeed, were nothing more than a mafiocracy of competing families from the start. The past does not present us with many utopias.

Other than that, they were usually annexed by decidedly not communal foreign powers.

Just like Black Ukraine and Catalonia were destroyed. For this sort of movement to succeed it would need to be a mass movement, and today's conventional nationstates would be have to be weak enough that they could not just swoop in and wipe out these fledgling communes. Most likely a federation of communes would be required.

[Annagrad]

When do you call someone not intelligent enough?
A lot people vote while they don't have enough background information about the politicians and what they stand for. That's just sad, but if people really want to make that better ... teachers have to inform children at school.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

It looks like you can't vote then.

At the rate things are going on this thread, the only people that will be allowed to vote will be Jesus and Bart Simpson. And even then, Jesus would have to provide proof that he is a US citizen, if he were to vote in TX.

Jesus would be quickly arrested in Texas for teaching peaceful ways. Never mind the fact that he is fucking Jesus and Texas is ultra religious. Anyone with long hair and a shaggy beard is automatically a no good hippy.

[Mavorpen]

At the rate things are going on this thread, the only people that will be allowed to vote will be Jesus and Bart Simpson. And even then, Jesus would have to provide proof that he is a US citizen, if he were to vote in TX.

Jesus would be quickly arrested in Texas for teaching peaceful ways. Never mind the fact that he is fucking Jesus and Texas is ultra religious. Anyone with long hair and a shaggy beard is automatically a no good hippy.

Jesus would also be arrested at the Airport and subject to stop and frisk. *nods*

[Ixzara]

Jesus would be quickly arrested in Texas for teaching peaceful ways. Never mind the fact that he is fucking Jesus and Texas is ultra religious. Anyone with long hair and a shaggy beard is automatically a no good hippy.

Jesus would also be arrested at the Airport and subject to stop and frisk. *nods*

Don't forget the cavity search.

[Mavorpen]

Jesus would also be arrested at the Airport and subject to stop and frisk. *nods*

Don't forget the cavity search.

Jesus' anus is a void of unimaginable power. For a mere mortal to look into it would be suicide.

[Great Nepal]

Yes, direct democracies would work in those communities... but those communities are not something that is in interest of humanity. If every city in world was a state in itself capable of going to war with neighbour at any moment: we would be wasting so much resources and lack pool of resources that we couldn't have made a lot of advancements we have made thanks to centralization.

They wouldn't really be states, as far as we know them. The community would be so integrated into the decision making process it would be difficult to tell where the state began and ended, if it existed at all. But yes those problems do present themselves. The decentralised clans of prehistory fought and killed one another constantly. Ideally the movement that forged these communes would be in the spirit of internationalism and classlessness. Or at least be wise enough to realise that it's much better for communes to share resources and ideas with one another for mutual benefit than wage war.

Yes, ideally. Ideally we would not need to do that because people would not be apathetic to decisions that affect everyone including themselves. Even more ideally, we would get a supercomputer that can make those decisions logically, replicators to create pocket universe from which it drains zero point energy to give all of us free stuff leaving humans to do what they want.
Unfortunately, ideal doesn't happen. Even if we could isolate part of brain where anger is stored and wipe it clean using special laser, at some point, you are bound to get conflict between two communes: be it over land, people or "he looked at me funny!1!" and when that happens there is bound to be war. When that happens, some bright spark in third commune will realise that his grains now go for lot more in return than before and he can make a lot of profit if two people fight rather than share.

[Antarticaria]

I think they should get to vote. Frankly i think we should remove common sense warning labels and let the problem solve itself... stupid hurts dont it?

[Ixzara]

They wouldn't really be states, as far as we know them. The community would be so integrated into the decision making process it would be difficult to tell where the state began and ended, if it existed at all. But yes those problems do present themselves. The decentralised clans of prehistory fought and killed one another constantly. Ideally the movement that forged these communes would be in the spirit of internationalism and classlessness. Or at least be wise enough to realise that it's much better for communes to share resources and ideas with one another for mutual benefit than wage war.

Yes, ideally. Ideally we would not need to do that because people would not be apathetic to decisions that affect everyone including themselves. Even more ideally, we would get a supercomputer that can make those decisions logically, replicators to create pocket universe from which it drains zero point energy to give all of us free stuff leaving humans to do what they want.
Unfortunately, ideal doesn't happen. Even if we could isolate part of brain where anger is stored and wipe it clean using special laser, at some point, you are bound to get conflict between two communes: be it over land, people or "he looked at me funny!1!" and when that happens there is bound to be war. When that happens, some bright spark in third commune will realise that his grains now go for lot more in return than before and he can make a lot of profit if two people fight rather than share.

I would like to offer this as a rebuttal: HAL

[Meepcraftia]

I think if a person is capable of getting him/herself to the voting place, they should be allowed to vote.

[Forster Keys]

They wouldn't really be states, as far as we know them. The community would be so integrated into the decision making process it would be difficult to tell where the state began and ended, if it existed at all. But yes those problems do present themselves. The decentralised clans of prehistory fought and killed one another constantly. Ideally the movement that forged these communes would be in the spirit of internationalism and classlessness. Or at least be wise enough to realise that it's much better for communes to share resources and ideas with one another for mutual benefit than wage war.

Yes, ideally. Ideally we would not need to do that because people would not be apathetic to decisions that affect everyone including themselves. Even more ideally, we would get a supercomputer that can make those decisions logically, replicators to create pocket universe from which it drains zero point energy to give all of us free stuff leaving humans to do what they want.
Unfortunately, ideal doesn't happen. Even if we could isolate part of brain where anger is stored and wipe it clean using special laser, at some point, you are bound to get conflict between two communes: be it over land, people or "he looked at me funny!1!" and when that happens there is bound to be war. When that happens, some bright spark in third commune will realise that his grains now go for lot more in return than before and he can make a lot of profit if two people fight rather than share.

Fighting between communes is a possibility. I suppose people in that movement have to work together to increase consciousness and fraternity of all involved so this shit doesn't happen. There's no such thing as utopia, but to me this system seems more than workable and preferable to modern statist capitalism.

[Twilight Imperium]

I think if a person is capable of getting him/herself to the voting place, they should be allowed to vote.

That's actually a decent criteria, imnsho, but imagine actually trying to implement it!

You have no keys in your pocket? Guards! Seize this filthy carpooler!

Carpooling is the right of all sentient bein- OW! Not the face!

[Ixzara]

I think if a person is capable of getting him/herself to the voting place, they should be allowed to vote.

That's actually a decent criteria, imnsho, but imagine actually trying to implement it!

You have no keys in your pocket? Guards! Seize this filthy carpooler!

Carpooling is the right of all sentient bein- OW! Not the face!

It is decent criteria. The only problem is that by striking down section 4 of the Civil Rights Act, several states (Namely Texas) have taken steps that could make voting more difficult, Including requiring voter ID to attempt to resolve a problem that doesn't exist. Additionally, women who have married now have to have a paper trail to prove they are who they say they are, if they decided to change their name after marriage.

[Twilight Imperium]

It is decent criteria. The only problem is that by striking down section 4 of the Civil Rights Act, several states (Namely Texas) have taken steps that could make voting more difficult, Including requiring voter ID to attempt to resolve a problem that doesn't exist. Additionally, women who have married now have to have a paper trail to prove they are who they say they are, if they decided to change their name after marriage.

I could have prefaced my post with "assuming the retarded assertion that putting more criteria on who can vote is a good idea and further assuming that any criteria will be taken to their ultimate fascist extreme", but that was kind of the joke.

[Ixzara]

It is decent criteria. The only problem is that by striking down section 4 of the Civil Rights Act, several states (Namely Texas) have taken steps that could make voting more difficult, Including requiring voter ID to attempt to resolve a problem that doesn't exist. Additionally, women who have married now have to have a paper trail to prove they are who they say they are, if they decided to change their name after marriage.

I could have prefaced my post with "assuming the retarded assertion that putting more criteria on who can vote is a good idea and further assuming that any criteria will be taken to their ultimate fascist extreme", but that was kind of the joke.

LOL!!! Sorry 'bout that!

[Twilight Imperium]

It's cool.

[Ethel mermania]

i have reached the conclusion that those who wish to restrict the vote of others, should lose the vote themselves, as they have proved they are unqualified for the vote themselves.

So nobody should be able to vote?

most people are not trying to restrict voting rights.

[Ixzara]

So nobody should be able to vote?

most people are not trying to restrict voting rights.

Except Texas.

[Ethel mermania]

i have reached the conclusion that those who wish to restrict the vote of others, should lose the vote themselves, as they have proved they are unqualified for the vote themselves.

It looks like you can't vote then.

i am not trying to resict voting rights, just responding to those who do

[Dyakovo]

It looks like you can't vote then.

i am not trying to resict voting rights, just responding to those who do

So, non-citizens can vote?

[Ixzara]

i am not trying to resict voting rights, just responding to those who do

So, non-citizens can vote?

I thought certain non-citizen nationals could vote.

[Ethel mermania]

i am not trying to resict voting rights, just responding to those who do

So, non-citizens can vote?

i meant within the context of the thread, non citizens, convicted felons and those who do not have the mental competence to control their own affairs as determined by a court of law (ie someone else who has guardianship over the person). which would also include minors.

[Dyakovo]

So, non-citizens can vote?

i meant within the context of the thread, non citizens, convicted felons and those who do not have the mental competence to control their own affairs as determined by a court of law (ie someone else who has guardianship over the person). which would also include minors.

I was just being pedantic.