Ok, after reading a thread about having to lower the age to vote, I had an instant idea. I'll make this thread. Here's what I think: - There should be an IQ test to vote, and only those over a certain IQ should be allowed to participate. Why? Because there are morons in the world, who not only vote on face value, but simply ignore everything a given government has done for a country, and the policies that the party they're voting for has. It also pisses me off that the majority of Australia still think the Labour party are GREAT, because they gave everyone $1,000 as a stimulus package, but they ignore the fact that we've gone from a massively surplus budget to a deficit budget in less than two years. Generally, those with a higher IQ will note these points, and will vote for the correct, and more logical party for the good governing of Australia, and the various countries. - All those under a certain (quite low) IQ should be euthanized. Prove me wrong. Discuss.
Oh my god Will. You can't put it up like that IQ tests won't really tell you how SMART a person is, there is actually 7 kinds of intelligences. Also, it doesn't depend on how high your IQ is if you can vote O-o you can be really smart and know SH-IT about politics, and have a very low IQ and know A LOT about politics. So that idea really is .. stupid =P
It should be a political IQ test. Know the stance of who you're voting for. Know how they vote on certain issues and what causes they support, etc. I've thought about this before and I think it should be a quiz type thing. If you vote for candidate A, you get quiz A. If you pass the test, your vote is counted. If you fail, you never find out. This way, the one with the actual knowledge of politics get their voice heard and those that don't know a damn thing about a pretty-faced candidate still think they did their part as well. Sure, people will cheat. Questions on the quiz will eventually appear on the internet, but even if people do attempt to cheat by memorizing all the answers, they still have to read "Candidate A is pro-life, fiscally conservative, pro-same sex marriage, blah, blah, blah." Even if they cheat, they still learn.
I don't know.. I don't like the whole idea about giving certain people an advantage. I think everyone should have equal rights, it's kinda the whole idea with democracy..
>_< You think I was serious in saying that everyone under a certain IQ should be euthanized?? No. But I do think that morons shouldn't be allowed to vote, but, of course, that doesn't correlate into IQ's.
I don't even know the word enhuzised and yeah, I get your point, I do see idiots voting because they dont know better, It's actually kinda sad D: but you can't keep them away from the voting places..
I'm in agreement with Rhett. As I mentioned in the other thread, the majority of voting is done by uninformed mouthbreathers that don't know the difference between congress and parliament. I don't think a political knowledge quiz is a bad idea at all; even though a multiple choice affair begs cheating, in order to procure the answers any would be cheaters will still have to look them up and chances are if they don't understand what some of the answers mean, they'll go ahead and look those up too. Private, non-government (but government funded) organisations could provide unbiased information pamphlets & television broadcasts explaining in simplified and unbiased terms exactly what each potential president stands for. It's a pipe dream for sure and it would never be endorsed by either political party simply because they both depend so heavily on buzzwords, mudslinging and general misinformation to procure votes from the idiot masses. Both parties are afraid that some of their policies too complex or obscure for the average voter to understand would make them unpopular if they were suddenly widely understood. This doesn't fix the other major flaw in democracy, though; No one agrees with anyone about everything all the time. While people may agree with the majority of something a candidate stands for, no one will ever agree with everything and in voting for him, their voice on the things they disagree with is actually lost.
Not euthanized, but maybe made to work at McDonald's to earn their bread. I mean, no one in their right mind could possibly ENJOY working there, so why not /let/ people work there that don't know any better? Honestly though, I have to agree. I don't vote myself because I have very political friends. If I voted 'wrong' I would probably start massive fights. :/ So I just keep out of it. Much easier. XD
You can't really split people into 'high IQ' and 'low IQ', because if you allow people from the former to vote, soon the same issue will arise. There will always be the group of people from the former with 'lower IQ' than the other half, so it's difficult to really split people up like that. Age restrictions are still the best, because it's less subjective and more feasible ;o
Certainly, you can. They're numbers, with a standard deviation and whatnot While I like the rest of your argument, I think we've already discussed this debate into the fact that IQ =/= political knowledge, and that I would be a monumental fool to think that it did.
I like the idea of some form of test (maybe when they are signing up for registration, similar to driver's licenses) that would at the very least test their basic understanding of how government works but at the same time, everyone should get to have an opinion on how their government is run But the thing is that even if it were a good idea and you came up with a completely fair test that accurately proved they were reliable enough to be allowed to vote--it would never pass because of the freedom it infringes on then again, I know nothing about how Australian politics work but on the note of american politics, watch fox news and giggle at them I don't doubt that they have the right to their opinion but I think that their whole organization is a bit like the tabloids because it spreads more misinformation that actual news, I don't mind news with a bias but seriously would it be so bad if the insurance companies had competition? I mean they go on and on about spending and what about all the spending that the previous president did? I hate two party systems blah
Totally agree with that. Who are we to say who can and can not vote? That's almost as bad as when black men were not allowed to vote.
Well, not really. That's actually not like that at all. Not allowing black people to vote is qualitative. It's denying them the ability to vote, based on that quality. Not allowing people of a low IQ to vote doesn't discriminate across races, and is quantitative, as it is defined by numbers. The latter is obviously fairer, but nothing like that would ever be implemented because whoever did do it would be castrated and hung from a flag pole.
You should have to of passed high school to vote AND buy alcohol. Might not have the highest iq but at least must know something about something. My two cents.
Too bad implementing an IQ test for voting would completely contradict the whole "the people's choice" part of our entire electoral system. :X: Restricting voting rights because of a feature of a person is "unconstitutional" and an idea like this would never pass through judicial steps. The only thing this doesn't apply to is minors. Although it's not like the Constitution hasn't been contradicted before. I'd like to cite the fact that schools can search you and your belongings without "probable cause", but just "reasonable suspicion" even though this totally goes against the 4th amendment about Search and Seizure. :|