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

lostinrates

Nikkster wrote: »

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...

Of course itwas,and that was probably the point, but.....poorly made and contributing to just what he was complaining about recently. This sort of thing does exactly the opposite of what is helpful.

BertieUK

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.

They are just winding you up Sampong..;)

zagubov

On a serious note, I remember when ATMs first appeared. Somebody proposed they should be installed in every library, and when the government wanted to canvass the public or even hold a referendum, the publc should use them for electronic voting.

The controversial bit was when somebody proposed that before they cast their vote the voter had to key in the answer to a few simple multiple-choice questions to show they knew a bare minimum of what the debate was about.

The idea died away eventually, but I gather that in the uS they use complicated machines for voting, and we alsways seem to copy them eventually.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Sampong wrote: »

What a pair of hypocritical, prejudiced Hamish lovers.

Eh?

"IQ's" in the title is not a correct use of an apostrophe.

They were having a dig at me, so, way to go with an overreaction!

Sampong

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

They were having a dig at me

That's much better then

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Nikkster wrote: »

Looking back this clearly was Hamish on the wind-up

lostinrates wrote: »

Of course it was, and that was probably the point, .

Wind up? No.

Use of a controversial proposition to stimulate debate? Absolutely.

Of course we'll never limit voting rights based on intelligence, and nor should we. It would be impossible to administer effectively, and would be open to abuse.

But it remains the reality that a significant minority of the population do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the complexities of some issues.

Particularly, as stated in the OP, where the economic reality can be counterintuitive, ie, "immigrants create jobs for the native born", or "tax rises can decrease government revenue".

And this leaves them open to manipulation from those on either the far right or far left with extremist ideology and an agenda.

History is littered with examples of rabble rousing politicians using tough, but temporary, economic times to promote intolerance, racism, xenophobia, or to push through ideological, social or economic agendas that would be unthinkable normally.

Today is no different.

And if it takes a controversial thread title to draw in people who otherwise would be hiding away talking about mushrooms and toyotas, I make no apologies for that.;)

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

would be hiding away talking about mushrooms and toyotas, I make no apologies for that.;)

Not low VED but nothing wrong with Toyota.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnWKz7Cthkk

Nikkster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But it remains the reality that a significant minority of the population do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the complexities of some issues.

But that is the case about plenty (many? most?) issues that are (or at least should be) covered by those we elect to represent us - abortion timings, benefits, stem cell research, healthcare, care for the elderly... the list is huge. I'm sure most people have opinions on these 'issues' - and there would be other people who would think that our thoughts show that we don't have the intellectual capability to understand the complexities. Does that mean that we should have no say (through a vote for an MP to represent us) in anything in which we can't show that we can 'understand' to a sufficient capacity? Who would decide whether we have reached this state of enlightenment? Would I automatically be discounted just because I disagree with the textbook answer?

Quasar

Nikkster wrote: »

But that is the case about plenty (many? most?) issues that are (or at least should be) covered by those we elect to represent us - abortion timings, benefits, stem cell research, healthcare, care for the elderly... the list is huge. I'm sure most people have opinions on these 'issues' - and there would be other people who would think that our thoughts show that we don't have the intellectual capability to understand the complexities. Does that mean that we should have no say (through a vote for an MP to represent us) in anything in which we can't show that we can 'understand' to a sufficient capacity? Who would decide whether we have reached this state of enlightenment? Would I automatically be discounted just because I disagree with the textbook answer?

Let's put it this way: there are those (on the right, on the left, or centre) who feel that anyone who doesn't see the world the way they do, and is not as opinionated as they are, is intellectually impaired.

Nikkster

Quasar wrote: »

Let's put it this way: there are those (on the right, on the left, or centre) who feel that anyone who doesn't see the world the way they do, and is not as opinionated as they are, is intellectually impaired.

To be honest I think it is usually the not seeing the world the way they do rather than the being as opinionated that is the crucial part.