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

Moby

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

IQ tests are easily manipulated by practice. They are a nonsense. Many years ago I did a few tests, starting off with an OK IQ test of 125 or so and finishing up at 160. It was simply practice.

Also, would Hamish have IQ tests held on a national level before every election/by-election, MEP and councillor vote? How costly. We already have low voter turnout and now there would have to be humiliating IQ tests done before an election?

Agree with the previous posts on Democracy. It's not a good system, but it's the best possible, and it should not be up to the Government to decide who is allowed to vote.

Grief - people have died for universal suffrage, it's a precious thing.

As you say everyone who keeps up to date with the latest psychological research knows that IQ tests are no longer valid as an accurate measure of intelligence.

shortchanged_2

PaulF81 wrote: »

Its less than 100 years ago that oxbridge and durham graduates (plus dons) had 2 votes. Cant see too many problems in this, nor the requirement to "earn" your vote, either through work, or lack of criminal conviction, or military service. Or being a graduate without a criminal record.

Either way, Labour, who are voted in by degenerates, the lazy and criminals, would be screwed politically.

Wasn't there some research that highlighted that people with low IQ's have a tendency to vote Conservative.

As for democracy we are not often truly democratic in this country because the ruling party very rarely has the backing of the majority of the population, actually not since 1935. And sometimes the party that has the larger populous vote can end up in opposition. Not really democracy is it.

Hooloovoo

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I've made my opinions on politics clear loads of times on here, but I find it utterly staggering that people are allowed to vote when they have absolutely no idea what they are voting for or what their vote even means. People like DecentLivingWage who choose to simply "support a team" regardless of what they shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of a poll card.

I had a row with a mate a many years ago who announced he'd voted UKIP because he reckoned he'd heard that they were going to make house prices the same all over the world, which would be handy for when he wants to move around... Why is this person allowed a say?

I find it all mental. IQ probably isn't the answer but some kind of politics aptitude test to earn the right to vote makes sense, to me at least.

This is absolutely my own view as well.

No, not everyone should be allowed to vote. And certainly never compulsory voting, that would simply increase the level of noise in the signal we are trying to determine due to the increase in essentially random voting.

It reminds me of an interview I saw during the AV referendum, where a "man on the street" said he was going to vote no to AV because he didn't want to support Nick Clegg after the issue with tuition fees! Clearly people like this should be be allowed to vote. The simple fact that AV did not go through is example enough that something needs to be done about the system.

I've skipped over the "are IQ tests valid" argument because I think it is missing the point.

Yes, absolutely, people should be required to pass a small, simple, test before being given a voting form.

Each candidate should have to supply one side of an A4 page detailing the key points of their manifesto. Each voter reads these forms, which should take no more than an hour.

Before being allowed to vote you are required to answer a few simple, basic, questions on each candidate. Questions that are not difficult and can be answered by anyone that has bothered to read the election documentation.

grizzly1911

Hooloovoo wrote: »

Each candidate should have to supply one side of an A4 page detailing the key points of their manifesto. Each voter reads these forms, which should take no more than an hour.

Before being allowed to vote you are required to answer a few simple, basic, questions on each candidate. Questions that are not difficult and can be answered by anyone that has bothered to read the election documentation.

This would be good if the politicians actually kept to their manifesto pledges which they often choose to ignore.

You might as well test them on Peter Rabbit.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Free speech means the idiots get to spout off. Democracy means the idiots get to vote. Anything else is the setting for a SF dystopian novel.

I work at one of the UK's top universities, surrounded by elite academics and hordes of the planet's allegedly brightest students. Many are confused by basic logic and simple instructions ("if you don't sign and return this form by x date you won't get paid"). I bet Hamish wouldn't like the way some of them voted either.

GeorgeHowell

Nikkster wrote: »

We cross posted about EQ

But how is being able to rotate a 2-D representation of a 3-D figure in your head or to be able to work out what number comes next in a sequence relevant to being 'allowed' to vote? Plenty of 'intelligent' people have no common sense or a narrow range of 'life experience'. Should they be screened out too?

Yes we did.

Don't get me wrong I totally reject the notion that the less intelligent should be disenfranchised in some way. Any diminution of universal manhood suffrage (excepting convicted criminals) would be a terrible thin end of the wedge towards autocracy.

But nor do I support those who knock IQ as no longer relevant, especially when they argue that so-called EQ is as, or even more, important. Picking out shapes and finishing number sequences is just a simplistic way of measuring reasoning ability, logical thinking, objectivity, and problem solving aptitude which can usefully be applied to more complex scenarios in the real world. Of course other factors are necessary for people to be high achievers and contributors, such as drive, diligence, capacity for work, interpersonal skills, integrity, and leadership ability.

If you get someone with some of those qualities but a low IQ then you will probably get a jobsworth. If you get someone with high IQ but lacking in those qualities then you might for example get an internet troll or a hacker. If you get someone who majors on "emotional intelligence" to the virtual exclusion of all else, then you get Tony Blair.

nicko33

kabayiri wrote: »

How many of us here have done that classic training course exercise.

The one where you are set an exercise on your own, then you repeat it as part of a group. Invariably the results are better when in the group.

Not invariably. I've been in one of those exercises and the larger group produced a worse result. The trainer was a bit surprised.
The cause of this result was that the group was not given proper information about the problem to be solved.

grizzly1911

nicko33 wrote: »

Not invariably. I've been in one of those exercises and the larger group produced a worse result. The trainer was a bit surprised.
The cause of this result was that the group was not given proper information about the problem to be solved.

I the individual had been poorly briefed too there is more of a chance of bad decision. In a group situation you would expect someone to question what they ere being asked to do.

michaels

Hamish you are a naughty boy

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?

StevieJ

PaulF81 wrote: »

Its less than 100 years ago that oxbridge and durham graduates (plus dons) had 2 votes. Cant see too many problems in this, nor the requirement to "earn" your vote, either through work, or lack of criminal conviction, or military service. Or being a graduate without a criminal record.

Either way, Labour, who are voted in by degenerates, the lazy and criminals, would be screwed politically.

You mean people like these?