Ban stupid people from voting?

If it were up to me, lots of things would require a competency test.

Idiots should not be allowed to:
* vote -- they just vote fellow idiots into office
* drive -- they're the insensitive and selfish asses on the road that cause accidents for us responsible drivers
* own a car alarm -- someone in my apartment complex finds it fascinating to make his alarm chirp catcalls at women all day... 'nuff said
* bear offspring -- do we really need the idiots breeding more of their kind?
* own a cell phone -- this is why it's now socially acceptable to talk about your father's colon cancer in a loud voice on the phone at a restaurant, and part of the reason they drive so recklessly
* purchase music -- they only make mindless pop drivel more popular and force the rest of us with good musical taste to listen to their rap music at ear-bleeding decibel levels as they slowly drive by in the streets
* walk alone in public -- I can't count how many times I've been frustrated by mindless idiots at the store that stop for no reason in the middle of the aisle right in front of me

Okay, so maybe that's a bit too harsh or ridiculous, but hopefully you get the basic idea.

Who judges who is "stupid" and who isn't? You? Me?

For all we know, she thinks you are the stupid one for not voting in her direction and what she believes to be right (not saying that it is).....so....can she make it so you get deemed as "stupid" and say that you can't vote either?

Who judges who is "stupid" and who isn't? You? Me?

Some people dont need to be judged.  IN the words of the philosopher "Stupid is as stupid does".

Well I can say I certainly have my moments.

Two words.

Ross Peroe.

Dan I do like your way of thinking! I agree with most of your thoughts, though I doubt that I would pass the test for walking alone in public, I am somewhat dizzy, which can lead to havoc!

Who judges who is "stupid" and who isn't? You? Me?

Well I can only speak for myself, and what I consider to be stupid

For all we know, she thinks you are the stupid one for not voting in her direction and what she believes to be right (not saying that it is).....so....can she make it so you get deemed as "stupid" and say that you can't vote either?

I couldn't agree with you more. It's only my personal opinion that she is stupid for her point of view. She could think exactly the same about me and I have no doubt that many people would consider some of my opinions stupid. It's all down to personal opinion, and that's what makes the world so wonderful that people do see things in different ways. I'm not saying I am right in this blog, I'm just putting an idea out there. If there was say a test to be done before people voted, then it wouldn't be up to her or I who voted.

Some people dont need to be judged. IN the words of the philosopher "Stupid is as stupid does".

I'm with Tova, I also have my moments. No ones perfect huh.

Thanks for all the comments x

Not saying I don't agree with you. Because I do, I am just thinking of the logistics of it all.

Like a carnival sign "You must be at least this smart to vote" or something?

Stroll down to the religion section and you'll find a blog pointing out studies that state that people who hold spiritual beliefs are supposedly less intelligent than people who reject them. The two sides of the political coin in the US think the other side is less intelligent. I've been told to my face right here at JU that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats.

So, I guess you have to decide how you are judging intelligence. If "scientists" can do sociological studies and actually believe that they've proven that people of faith are less intelligent, then it seems obvious to me that the intelligence of "scientists" is suspect. People say what they think makes them appear smart, not what they really believe anyway.

So, if you start providing freedom only to people who are smart, and make those perceived as "stupid" live under their thumb, I wonder how it will effect what we state openly about ourselves? I wonder how easy it would be crush political or spiritual beliefs, even racial characteristics, by labelling them "stupid".

Baker would this create anarchy? Since there is no way to measure and based upon one's perception of others I would safely say that would eliminate everyone from voting?

No, just the opposite, in my opinion. It would create a fascist state where whoever decided who was intelligent held absolute power. I have taken standardized tests, and I don't think I like the idea, not for a moment, that the idiots who design them could end up being the ones who pull the strings.

Of course they wouldn't. They'd just have their strings pulled by the people who wanted to steer the voting demographics in their direction. Stupid people have the right to represent themselves just like anyone else. If people have a problem with that, they could devote their blogging time to educating them on the issues, maybe.

Not saying I don't agree with you. Because I do, I am just thinking of the logistics of it all. Like a carnival sign "You must be at least this smart to vote" or something?

....I'm not sure about that. Maybe. Maybe 'smart' is the wrong word.

Stupid people have the right to represent themselves just like anyone else. If people have a problem with that, they could devote their blogging time to educating them on the issues, maybe.

Hmmm.....does it not depend on what areas people are tested? What if they weren't test. What if we just made sure people were educated about politics, and were given something to think about, and something real to base their ideas on. Here in England I feel it is different to America. Young people here don't seem to care as much in general. They ignore politics. They fail to see how it has a direct effect on their life. That's because they know NOTHING about politics. So in that area yes they do need educating. Is it bad to want that? Is it bad to want to inform people on things, and then allow them to make their own decisions? The girl I spoke about in this blog didn't have the correct information, and she had nothing to compare her ideas too. So in the area of voting she was stupid, because she had never learnt anything. Maybe I am wrong, I don't know.

Thanks for the comments, it gave me something to think about x

No, just the opposite, in my opinion. It would create a fascist state where whoever decided who was intelligent held absolute power. I have taken standardized tests, and I don't think I like the idea, not for a moment, that the idiots who design them could end up being the ones who pull the strings.

Yes you are right but I was refering to that there is someone who will think that someone is stupid. By that table alone there would be no one to vote. I agree with you that in reality oppression will ripen quickly.

Sally,

I think ignorance would be more appropriate. There are simply too many people who vote out of ignorance. They ignore the fact that they as a responsible citizen should understand the person's stance on key issues not just party association. But I guess that's why we have the electoral college to hopefully reduce ignorance?

I've been told to my face right here at JU that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats.

Check out what Frank Herbert said 25 years ago.  Very appropriate to this discussion and you comment I think.

I think one thing you are overlooking is that most of the people you are talking about don't vote at all. If you worry about people walking in and just voting because of the party beside the name, well, most people do that regardless of education.

Look at JU, for instance. We used to talk about Iraq before the war and the big villain then was sanctions. People posted insane numbers of deaths due to them, just as they post insane numbers of civilian casualties now. When you point out that the population of Iraq simply didn't support that, they claimed we simply were brainwashed by the media.

Then you have supporters of the Iraq war claiming that people who oppose it are brainwashed by the negative coverage constantly aired by the mainstream media. Then you have educators who are giving kids extra credit for protesting, or who spend their time in class promoting their political stance, as we've seen here lately.

In light of that, it would have to be a really, really objective standard. I don't even think some people's "issues" are issues at all, frankly, so if someone asked me intricate questions about them I wouldn't be interested enough to give the names and dates.

Placing barriers to voting is always a bad thing. A small amount is necessary to make sure that the election is clean, that people only vote once, etc., but anything more always seems to focus on particular groups. Just look at what a problem drawing the lines of the voting districts is.

Consider the people who have the least time to educate themselves. You work two jobs, you take care of your family, but you really don't have time to watch a lot of news. Then you have someone who is at leisure and has the time to do a lot of reading and watch TV. Their interests, and quite possibly political beliefs, would be comepletely different, but one would be more apt to be allowed to vote.

"Do you know the candidate's names?

To what degree? Like, you can only vote on the elections wherein you can name the candidates? And you don't want to make it about the signs in people's yards? You'd have a huge turnout for Presidential elections and the lower you go the less votes. You'd probably have some local elections that only the campaigns themselves were allowed to vote.

What party they belong to?

Not sure that really matters. If someone wants to vote for someone and then changes their mind when they find out that they are a Republican... well, that doesn't sound like any more of an informed choice. After all, the party is pretty obvious in the whole voting thing.

Where the party stands on the issues of the day? Where each candidate stands on the issues being presented?

Tell that to the log cabin Republicans and pro-life Democrats. I know there are a lot of pro-life people who just vote Democrat because of Roosevelt era Demcrat mystique, but I don't know any of them that aren't aware that the Democratic party isn't pro-life.

Anyhoo, you'd have to have parties that actually TAKE stands on the issues. Go back and read about Kerry in terms of gay marriage, war, abortion, etc. I read a lot about the man, and I can't say for sure where he really stood on any of it.

And not all candidates follow their party platform. As McCain or Zell Miller where they fall on the issues in terms of the party platform. I think the whole party platform thing would just tend to pull the wool over people's eyes instead of informing them. In reality, the platform is just windowdressing anyway.

There are simply too many people who vote out of ignorance. They ignore the fact that they as a responsible citizen should understand the person's stance on key issues not just party association

Yes I think you're right, I couldn't agree more!

I don't think intelligence tests for voters are the answer, but a basic civics exam based on the particular election in question wouldn't hurt.

Hey LW! It's nice to see you back, and thanks for the comment. I do agree that people need a basic idea of who they are voting for. Even if they just know the key issues each party stands for, so they can see where they sit. I suppose it's the same with everything, people stick with what they are most familiar with, and what they've heard most from. Amazing how easy it is to manipulate people really! Thanks for the comments x

Sally,

Thanks so much for the nods. I will have to read this more carefully before I comment, but I just wanted to let you know I've seen it. I have a pretty heavy work schedule at the moment and don't have the time I usually do to spend here.

Well I was reading a great article by the wonderful Dynamaso

I don't know about the 'wonderful' bit but I will take it anyway (I'm a sucker for flattery of any sort).

Sally,

Thanks so much for the nods. I will have to read this more carefully before I comment, but I just wanted to let you know I've seen it. I have a pretty heavy work schedule at the moment and don't have the time I usually do to spend here.

Well I was reading a great article by the wonderful Dynamaso

I don't know about the 'wonderful' bit but I will take it anyway (I'm a sucker for flattery of any sort).

Stupid people have the right to represent themselves just like anyone else.

This is true and should close the argument. While allowing 'fools' a voice in dictating national policy might not initially seem the best way of doing things, I am reminded of what Churchill said, "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.".

What is more interesting is the way in which certain checks and balances seem to be 'encoded' into the system, so that wisdom of a kind (usually) prevails. Whether it is because extremes cancel each other out, or politicians, being forced to do deals, often tend towards the uncontroversial middle, or even that there is sometimes a wisdom in crowds rarely found in individuals, the overall effect of our democratic governments seems to be towards a reasonable moderation and consensus, compared to the horrors that history has thrown up in the past and is throwing up in the present where democratic norms do not prevail.

Have a look around the forums here and see where the suggested solution to a complex world problem is "nuke 'em!" Then feel grateful that, while someone thinking that way can vote for the government, they are unlikely to be the government. (Otherwise our chances of surviving as a species beyond next week would probably be in the order of 1%. )

I will have to read this more carefully before I comment, but I just wanted to let you know I've seen it. I have a pretty heavy work schedule at the moment and don't have the time I usually do to spend here.

Aww well thanks for taking the time out to let me know you're here, much appreciated

sometimes a wisdom in crowds rarely found in individuals, the overall effect of our democratic governments seems to be towards a reasonable moderation and consensus, compared to the horrors that history has thrown up in the past and is throwing up in the present where democratic norms do not prevail.

This is a very good and one I did mean to bring up. The party that the girl I spoke about was talking about is a minority, and for a good reason. In general the crowd does have the wisdom to make the right decision. I just think everyone should be able to make an educated decision, and be made to realise the importance of such things.

Then feel grateful that, while someone thinking that way can vote for the government, they are unlikely to be the government.

Good point. Thanks for the comment x

There is a distinct difference between the way the Australian and the American public vote. Here, every one over the age of 18 MUST vote or they pay a fine. In America, only those who bother to register can vote. I'm not sure what happens in England, but I'm assuming it is the same as here in Australia.

The unfortunate thing is that, at least when I was at school, not a lot of emphasis was placed on present day politics, which meant we were let out into the world having a historical understanding of the politics of our country but not really knowing what was going on in the present day. For most, this wasn't too much of a problem as they voted the way their parents did or voted for someone whose name they recognised. Often times, I'm sure the most informed some of these people got was from the voting fliers handed to them on the way to the polling stations. Even though I don't consider myself a politics person, I still took the time, even as a young man, to at least be aware of the policies of the parties up for election and who the power players were.

I like Whip's idea of a basic civics exam of some sort before people can vote. At least then voters would have an understanding of the policies they were voting for and the effect their vote might have.

Good article, Sally.

I like Whip's idea of a basic civics exam of some sort before people can vote. At least then voters would have an understanding of the policies they were voting for and the effect their vote might have./quote]

Same here. It wouldn't have to held before every election. It could simply be something you do before you receive voting rights. So if you never sit the test, you never have to vote (dunno if it would be practical though; it would be a way out of voting, and compulsory voting is practically in the constitution it's so engrained).

The questions may as well be on the political system - ie what the role of the PM is, the role of his ministers, the roles of the cabinet, etc. It doesn't have to be hard, it just needs to show that the prospective voter has at least thought about how government is supposed to work.

Making voters know who the candidates are would mean practically noone would qualify for senate votes; could anyone really hope that many would remember all the candidates on NSW's tablecloth ballot last election? I think there were nearly 30.

We already do ban stupid people from voting.

If you are too stupid to care about voting, you don't vote.

If you are too stupid to register, you don't vote.

If you are too stupid to find the polling place, you don't vote.

If you are too stupid to get your act together on voting day, you don't vote.

Me? I figure, why have more laws for something that nature takes care of just fine without wasteful and oppressive government intervetion?

Cacto:

The questions may as well be on the political system - ie what the role of the PM is, the role of his ministers, the roles of the cabinet, etc. It doesn't have to be hard, it just needs to show that the prospective voter has at least thought about how government is supposed to work.

Yes, I agree. The questions don't have to be hard, but indepth enough so that those answering them have some understanding of the system.

Making voters know who the candidates are would mean practically noone would qualify for senate votes; could anyone really hope that many would remember all the candidates on NSW's tablecloth ballot last election? I think there were nearly 30.

True. But at least people should have some knowledge of the polices and maybe the power players.

I have the solution: stupid people get 1/2 vote, idiots 1/3 vote people that actually know who the candidates are and what they stand for 3/4 vote and really bright people, {much like me} get a full vote.

I'm not sure what happens in England, but I'm assuming it is the same as here in Australia.

No, it's not. Voting is not compulsory in the UK and I am happy with that. The Australian view is that voting is a civic duty: even if you don't want to vote for any of the candidates, you still have to turn up and you can then spoil your vote if you want to. In the UK you can make the same statement just by staying away. Traditionally, even without compulsory voting, the turnout in UK General Elections is in the 70-80% range. The last UK General Election (2005) however saw our lowest ever turnout (for a number of reasons) since universal adult suffrage, roughly the same (within about 1 or 2 percent) of the US turnout in 2004, which was one of their highest ever turnouts.

idiots 1/3 vote people that actually know who the candidates are and what they stand for 3/4 vote and really bright people, {much like me} get a full vote.

Actually until 1950 the UK had a not similar system, whereby graduates of certain universities had more than one vote. Oxford, Cambridge and my own alma mater, London University, had their own MPs and graduates could therefore vote for both their university MP and the MP for the constituency in which they lived. The last UK university constituency was actually Queen's University, Belfast, which returned an MP to the Parliament of Northern Ireland up until 1969.