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

CLAPTON

Hooloovoo wrote: »

Oh, really? Care to explain to me how the two issues are related then?

Let me explain.


One had a opportunity to vote.

One only has the opportunity to vote on a limited number of occasions.

One wants to make one's vote count.

Anyone of normal intelligence realises that the actual question on the ballot paper is only one aspect of the situation.

The circumstances leading up to the ballot are revelant as are the general political circumstances.

So in local elections very very intelligent people may use their vote to express their views about national politics even though the actual election is about local issues.

The low turn out for MEPs is often a reflection on some disinterest about Europe than a reflection on the individuals standing.

Similarly with recent the police commissioners elections.

In some cricumstances abstaining sends a clear message.

In the AV vote many people may have wanted to say

1. I don't want to be asked about AV just as a sop to LibDems.

2. As it's a Libdem proposal, rejecting it is the only way I can currently show my disgust with LibDems

3. they may have genuinely been in favour or against and voted accordingly.

4. Some people don't approve of referenda in our parliamentary democracy.


Who are you to say my/their choice is invalid?

Out,_Vile_Jelly

the_flying_pig wrote: »

In an ideal world there'd be a properly neutral body who would put together really easy to read [e.g. as easy as this] guides to the differences between the parties in the period running up to election, very carefully spelling out the pros, cons, limitations, & so on, of everything that was being said.

This might help get around the difficulties caused by there being so much spin, & so much stuff left unsaid... I mean, looking at something like this from last time, it's, as one would expect, all propaganda, all rhetoric, with no substance & no admissions about the downsides of what's being proposed.

But of course no body could ever be "properly neutral" since so much of what it'd take to produce these guides would slip into subjective territory.

Oh well.

This website at least allows you to check what your MP has voted on: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mps/

A lot of people vote for a good local MP rather than on tribal party grounds, on the basis that they've swiftly dealt with a problem of theirs. I think that's a very rational basis for voting. Many people are more interested in local community issues than macro-economic policy and the kind of thing Westminster hacks report on.

grizzly1911

the_flying_pig wrote: »

In an ideal world there'd be a properly neutral body who would put together really easy to read [e.g. as easy as this] guides to the differences between the parties in the period running up to election, very carefully spelling out the pros, cons, limitations, & so on, of everything that was being said.

This might help get around the difficulties caused by there being so much spin, & so much stuff left unsaid... I mean, looking at something like this from last time, it's, as one would expect, all propaganda, all rhetoric, with no substance & no admissions about the downsides of what's being proposed.

But of course no body could ever be "properly neutral" since so much of what it'd take to produce these guides would slip into subjective territory.

Oh well.

I think they should all be forced to wear neutral ties too, get rid of all that subliminal stuff.

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I think they should all be forced to wear neutral ties too, get rid of all that subliminal stuff.

Perhaps on the party political party broadcasts the Conservatives could be dubbed over by Bob Hoskins and Ray Winstone in order to get away from all that subliminal "posh boy" stuff ?

shortchanged_2

gorgeyetsun wrote: »

If we were discussing this in a room, we'd all now be sheepishly looking sideways at Graham_Devon to see if he realises.

Are you familiar with Graham then, seeing as you only have 25 posts to your name?

Mr._Pricklepants

shortchanged wrote: »

Are you familiar with Graham then, seeing as you only have 25 posts to your name?

Just ONE day on this forum is plenty to familiarize yourself with Graham's ignoramusiness, trust me...

Quasar

In answer to a previous post, IQ tests are NOT designed to be taken dozens of time. That is the reason why there are so many different tests (Cattel, Wechsler etc).

Also, taking two or at most three tests SHOULD result is a small increase in the score, and the second or at most third test are more accurate as they measure also the ability to learn - ie one has learnt a new skill in taking a test. That is nothing extraordinary and it is why Mensa encourage people to take a home test before sitting the invigilated, no-cheat test proper.

IQ tests do not measure the whole of intellectual ability, but they do measure clarity and speed of thinking, as well as memory in a smaller measure, which are really the only quantifiable abilities we possess. They do not measure maturity and compassion for example, which is why you can have a very intelligent person with no social skills, no empathy and no interest in others.

Which is why I don't think IQ should be considered as the measure by which to assess who should be voting or not. Besides, once only the IQ100+ are allowed to vote, we will have opened the door for further laws insisting that only the 110+ should be allowed to vote, and so on until we have created a super intelligent elite who can deal with highly complex thinking, but has no clue nor interest in the problems of the lower orders.

When you create an elite, selfishness always rules: greed and arrogance dominate and whatever intelligence is there will be their servant. Not a society I'd look forward to live in.

Hooloovoo

CLAPTON wrote: »

Anyone of normal intelligence realises that the actual question on the ballot paper is only one aspect of the situation.

The circumstances leading up to the ballot are revelant as are the general political circumstances.

So in local elections very very intelligent people may use their vote to express their views about national politics even though the actual election is about local issues.

I agree, in a local election. But we were discussing a yes/no referendum.

Similarly with recent the police commissioners elections.

In some cricumstances abstaining sends a clear message.

I agree, in a local election. But we were discussing a yes/no referendum.

In the AV vote many people may have wanted to say

1. I don't want to be asked about AV just as a sop to LibDems.

Then abstain.

2. As it's a Libdem proposal, rejecting it is the only way I can currently show my disgust with LibDems

Whichever party proposed it is irrelevant. Very very intelligent people will understand that voting yes or no in a referendum just because you like or dislike the party that made the proposal is utterly ridiculous. You either think it's a good idea or not, and should vote accordingly.

3. they may have genuinely been in favour or against and voted accordingly.

Good. That's the idea.

4. Some people don't approve of referenda in our parliamentary democracy.

Then abstain.

Voting "no" against a policy change that would be a good idea just because you dislike the party or person that proposed it is so moronically idiotic I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to discuss it.

grizzly1911

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Perhaps on the party political party broadcasts the Conservatives could be dubbed over by Bob Hoskins and Ray Winstone in order to get away from all that subliminal "posh boy" stuff ?

I do wonder whether in some random way MPs and Ministers could be made to swap safe seats for part of a parliament. Cons from down sarff savouring the delights of the NE and Labour doing the reverse. Just so a degree of realism could be brought to the table from both sides. George from Tatton with Dai from Merthyr for example.

BertieUK

The Conservative pattern never really changes, they are so committed to making negative points and views about the Opposition that they forget that it is they who are Governing our country at the moment and should put all positive effort into worrying about how to convince the Electorate in 2015 that they should vote for them instead of giving these negative comments otherwise...

...The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese...