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

Hooloovoo

CLAPTON wrote: »

Which holy book tells you that abstaining is better than voting?

Being an atheist I would not know.

It is fairly obviously that voting for or against something, based on some entirely unrelated information or viewpoint, is a very dangerous way to proceed.

For example, voting for the BNP as a "protest vote" against the main parties only to discover you have accidentally voted the BNP into power. The end result was not what you actually wanted.

CLAPTON

Hooloovoo wrote: »

Being an atheist I would not know.

It is fairly obviously that voting for or against something, based on some entirely unrelated information or viewpoint, is a very dangerous way to proceed.

For example, voting for the BNP as a "protest vote" against the main parties only to discover you have accidentally voted the BNP into power. The end result was not what you actually wanted.

Rather selective editing or maybe an inability to understand the concepts.

Your example seems a bit bizarre as you have previously said such tactical voting is acceptable in a local election.

System

elsien wrote: »

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.
.

That sounds a bit subjective. So there is no actual rule and no actual test?
The presumption appears to be that anyone can vote unless they demonstrate such extreme lack of capability as to alert the returning officer, who then exercises his judgement.

On that basis virtually anyone should have the vote, including children.

MS1950

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?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html

chewmylegoff

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?

In my opinion people who can't use apostrophes properly should not be allowed to vote or breed.

Mr._Pricklepants

chewmylegoff wrote: »

In my opinion people who can't use apostrophes properly should not be allowed to vote or breed.

Yer...everybody on here surely agree's with that.

Sampong

chewmylegoff wrote: »

In my opinion people who can't use apostrophes properly should not be allowed to vote or breed.

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Yer...everybody on here surely agree's with that.

What a pair of hypocritical, prejudiced Hamish lovers.

According to your logic then - Albert Einstein, Leonardo DaVinci and Winston Churchill would have been ineligible to vote because they all had problems with spelling and grammar.

Whilst bad English grates on me - I know a lot of successful and intelligent people who are challenged in this area.

morag1202

Sampong wrote: »

What a pair of hypocritical, prejudiced Hamish lovers.

According to your logic then - Albert Einstein, Leonardo DaVinci and Winston Churchill would have been ineligible to vote because they all had problems with spelling and grammar.

Whilst bad English grates on me - I know a lot of successful and intelligent people who are challenged in this area.

Hamish, I think you have your winner

chewmylegoff

Sampong wrote: »

What a pair of hypocritical, prejudiced Hamish lovers.

According to your logic then - Albert Einstein, Leonardo DaVinci and Winston Churchill would have been ineligible to vote because they all had problems with spelling and grammar.

Whilst bad English grates on me - I know a lot of successful and intelligent people who are challenged in this area.

People who don't get my jokes shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

Nikkster

chewmylegoff wrote: »

People who don't get my jokes shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

Looking back this clearly was Hamish on the wind-up

The problem is, that it is pretty much indistinguishable from a lot of the other threads on this board...