Should People With Low IQ's Be Allowed To Vote?

elsien

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, is there any kind of test of capability at the lowest end of the intelligence spectrum? Can a person with such severe learning difficulties as to be barely capable of understanding what voting means, none the less insist on a right to vote?

Not a test of capability as such, but the returning officer can step in if they feel somone really has no idea about what they're doing.
And in practice, someone who needs that level of support would be unable to complete the ballot paper in any meaningful way anyway unless someone was standing next to them pointing out what they need to do. Which isn't allowed.
In my experience people with the level of learning disability that means they have very little concept of voting, struggle to do anything resembling writing or making meaningful marks. And to be perfectly honest, have so little understanding or interest in politics and voting that they really wouldn't see the point in going to a polling booth anyway. The chaps I work with would far rather be down the pub. (So in that respect fairly typical of a lot of people).

ffacoffipawb

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Democracy is the least bad system we've tried so far, but it's far from perfect.

As 50% of the population have an IQ of 100 or less, and such people are essentially incapable of comprehending some of the more complex issues facing society, particularly issues where the evidence supports a counter-intuitive conclusion, wouldn't it be better if passing an IQ test above a certain threshold was a prerequisite for voting?

Or is it the case that we should continue to rely on Politicians being able to dumb down debate so that a majority of voters can understand, even though this leads to the nuances and subtleties of important issues being lost, and encourages partisan conflict and 'rabble rousing' styles of communication?

If we had such an IQ test, we'd never get another Labour Government, which would be a very good thing.

Moby

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

If we had such an IQ test, we'd never get another Labour Government, which would be a very good thing.

So does that make all us Welsh particularly stupid.....because we never go Tory do we?;)

zagubov

It used to be the case that businessmen held votes where they lived and where gthey had their business, so they got two votes. It was reduced to one per person (I think at the same time as gthe universities lost their seats).

I wouldn't want to see the vote limited in any way.

Andrew Czartoryski wrote a book called Education for Power back in the 70s, in which he proposed democracies needed ombudsmen (then confined to a few Scandinavian coountries but now found here).
However he thought they should be organised like a non-partisan civil service departemnt and oversee all political elections and put "health warnings" on all political adverts stating how many broken promises had been made, etc., so voters could decide based on candidates track records.

Expensive and unwieldy but would make elections more serious and morre meaningful.

BertieUK

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Democracy is the least bad system we've tried so far, but it's far from perfect.

As 50% of the population have an IQ of 100 or less, and such people are essentially incapable of comprehending some of the more complex issues facing society, particularly issues where the evidence supports a counter-intuitive conclusion, wouldn't it be better if passing an IQ test above a certain threshold was a prerequisite for voting?

Or is it the case that we should continue to rely on Politicians being able to dumb down debate so that a majority of voters can understand, even though this leads to the nuances and subtleties of important issues being lost, and encourages partisan conflict and 'rabble rousing' styles of communication?

Considering that the percentage of the Electorate that bother to vote at General Elections is getting smaller, I wonder what percentage of these voters have an IQ of 100 or less. Your good a figures Hamish

homelessskilledworker

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Democracy is the least bad system we've tried so far, but it's far from perfect.

As 50% of the population have an IQ of 100 or less, and such people are essentially incapable of comprehending some of the more complex issues facing society, particularly issues where the evidence supports a counter-intuitive conclusion, wouldn't it be better if passing an IQ test above a certain threshold was a prerequisite for voting?

Or is it the case that we should continue to rely on Politicians being able to dumb down debate so that a majority of voters can understand, even though this leads to the nuances and subtleties of important issues being lost, and encourages partisan conflict and 'rabble rousing' styles of communication?

This is the kind of thinking that gave us Hitler.

gorgeyetsun

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

This is the kind of thinking that gave us Hitler.

I call Godwin's law!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

N1AK

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

On what grounds do we not give the vote to people aged 16? 14? 12?

I wish I knew. In my opinion you should need clear evidence that someone is incapable of making an informed rational and independent decision to disenfranchise them. I honestly think that in 40 years the idea that 16-17 year olds weren't allowed to vote will be seen in the same way we see the disenfranchisement of women in the past.

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

The fact that at some point we decide that someone does not possess enough understanding or capability to be given the vote surely means that in principle we accept that the majority has the right to deny voting rights to a minority?

It shows that we can be completely hypocritical, and oblivious to it, as a society

Graham_Devon

BertieUK wrote: »

With due respect to you I had hoped that this was history

I bet you did!

Imagine the convenience that would bring!

Generali

Moby wrote: »

So does that make all us Welsh particularly stupid.....because we never go Tory do we?;)

If the cap (Welsh Hat?) fits....