We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Should People With Low IQ's Be Allowed To Vote?
Options
Comments
-
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.
There's world of difference between thinking someone intellectually challenged and wanting to deprive them of the vote. If the intellectually challenged were taken out of the equation all the spin doctors would be out of a job overnight.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »There's world of difference between thinking someone intellectually challenged and wanting to deprive them of the vote. If the intellectually challenged were taken out of the equation all the spin doctors would be out of a job overnight.
That is true, but tell it to those who feel intellectually superior and arrogantly that they alone should decide what's what for everyone else. There are many around, fortunately unlistened to and disregarded.Be careful who you open up to. Today it's ears, tomorrow it's mouth.0 -
That is true, but tell it to those who feel intellectually superior and arrogantly that they alone should decide what's what for everyone else. There are many around, fortunately unlistened to and disregarded.
Sadly not so, since your description applies pretty much to the whole of the EU Commission.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Who would decide whether we have reached this state of enlightenment?
As I posted previously, 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.
And I obviously have no issue with electoral representation. It makes sense for most people to vote for an MP who broadly is closest to their outlook, and in fairness, it doesn't require an in depth understanding of every single issue to determine that.
The line becomes a bit more blurred however, when you start talking about referendums...
Surely a prerequisite for directly voting on single issues of national importance should be that you properly understand what you're voting for?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.
There is a difference between having an opinion based on understanding an issue, and having an opinion because you believe something which is untrue.
For example, a person may fully understand that immigrants create more jobs than they take, that they increase the income for 95% of the native born population, and that they are economically advantageous for the nation as a whole. Yet that same person may still vote to limit immigration, purely because they are racist.
And to be honest, whilst I and most other people may find that morally disgusting, that person should still of course be allowed to vote that way.
But that's entirely different to a person voting to limit immigration because they believe things which are simply not true, such as immigrants increase crime, immigrants drive down wages for most people, or immigrants take more jobs than they create. The evidence is clear that these things are untrue, yet it is also clear than many people do not have the intellectual capacity to understand why they are untrue.
Should those people be able to lead the country down a dangerous path, based on untruths and the deceit of those with an agenda?
Well that is debatable....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Should those people be able to lead the country down a dangerous path, based on untruths and the deceit of those with an agenda?
Yes, if it is between that and some people being 'allowed' to vote or not based on whether they agree with your or whoever else's beliefs.
Alternatives - go and live somewhere where those who have the power to make important decisions (be it whoever is in power or the electorate) are more intelligent and where things are run more to your liking, or find way to raise awareness in the unintelligent masses. (Hint - your approach at the moment isn't working).0 -
Yes, if it is between that and some people being 'allowed' to vote or not based on whether they agree with your or whoever else's beliefs.
Alternatives - go and live somewhere where those who have the power to make important decisions (be it whoever is in power or the electorate) are more intelligent and where things are run more to your liking, or find way to raise awareness in the unintelligent masses. (Hint - your approach at the moment isn't working).
I think it comes down to the question of whether or not a referendum is a suitable way to decide complex issues.Murphy was an optimist!!!0 -
Yes,
So you do not agree that surely a prerequisite for directly voting on single issues of national importance should be that you properly understand what you're voting for?if it is between that and some people being 'allowed' to vote or not based on whether they agree with your or whoever else's beliefs.
Where did I say that?
I've specifically stated I accept that racists should be allowed to vote in a racist way because they are racist.
Where I have a problem is with stupid people being mislead into voting for things that will hurt them, because they are gullible, naive, or ignorant.
This has nothing to do with "agreeing with beliefs" and everything to do with "understanding the evidence".“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
-
I think it comes down to the question of whether or not a referendum is a suitable way to decide complex issues.
It could be, if those participating have the intellectual capacity to understand the complex issues.
But where a significant percentage of the population do not, that can lead to very serious problems.find way to raise awareness in the unintelligent masses. (Hint - your approach at the moment isn't working).
If I wanted to raise awareness in the unintelligent masses, I wouldn't pick a hidden board with just a couple of dozen posters.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Where did I say that?
I've specifically stated I accept that racists should be allowed to vote in a racist way because they are racist.
Where I have a problem is with stupid people being mislead into voting for things that will hurt them, because they are gullible, naive, or ignorant.
This has nothing to do with "agreeing with beliefs" and everything to do with "understanding the evidence".
But who decides whether something is stupid and whether it will hurt the voter? Given that it is usually impossible to reach a consensus amongst "experts" on any important issue, what you are really proposing is a dictatorship where Hamish decides what the people will and will not get a say in.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards