Should there be an intelligence test for the right to vote?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Random statistic of the day, right out of my public opinion textbook (which, as of about an hour ago, I'm done with. I hate May terms.)

Percent of Americans (in 1964) who knew the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO: 38

And this was the book that was arguing in favor of voter competence...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Pekka
I think the limit should be higher, meaning that only 8% or so can vote if intelligence is the question. Because if the limit is lower, then we have the people who 'are smart enough to vote' and people 'who aren't smart enough to vote'. And we all get to personally know them and have them amongst us, it can't be a good thing, if we are going to do this, we should make the limit truly high enough. What is intelligent anyway? Someone who scores little above average? No no no... let's make it the top level if it should be a requirement.

I think only people at least as intelligent as me should be able to vote...

[King of Rasslin]

Originally posted by alva
Is he ^^ serious? Not Fun, the one above him.

Yes, our voting machines can be easily tampered with, and a loser guilty of drug abuse, theft, and indecency has the same voting power as an upstanding, law-abiding citizen. As for soldiers, they risk their lives for a pay less than the poverty level. They deserve more political clout.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I think only people at least as intelligent as me should be able to vote...

nice to see KH defending universal suffrage

[KrazyHorse]

What's really sad is that I said that in the hopes that somebody would respond as you did.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Yes, our voting machines can be easily tampered with, and a loser guilty of drug abuse, theft, and indecency has the same voting power as an upstanding, law-abiding citizen. As for soldiers, they risk their lives for a pay less than the poverty level. They deserve more political clout.

Yeah, 'cause it's always good when the people with the biggest guns have the most political power.

[PuddlewatchHQ]

This should be a poll. The answer is yes.

[Jon Miller]

No.

JM

[Zkribbler]

The remedy for an uneducated electorate is to better educate the electorate, not to use some arbitrary line to cut off some people from their right to vote.

There are two main reasons why this is a bad idea.

First--even assuming the test won't be purposefully rigged--the plain fact is we all see people who agree with us and being more intelligent than people who don't. This phenomenon of human nature would result in the test reflecting the test writers' biases'. Indeed, just the type of question asked would reflect the test-writers' biases.

For example, someone above quoted American's ignorance re: the USSR's non-membership in NATO. While international issues are important to many, other people stress economic issues ("It's the economy, stupid), others stress moral or character issues.

Second, the proposed rule ignores the central tenet of our republic: "that all men are created EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness." Liberty includes the ability to participate in the choosing the nation's leadership.

(BTW: The above quote is by a member of the liberal elite [me] of something written by a member of the liberal elite. The liberal elite is a good thing )

When the American republic was founded, monarchists gleefully predicted its quick demise. There was logic in that prediction: Farmers, shopkeepers, silversmiths and other common people just didn't have the training or experience necessary to run a government. For that, you needed someone trained from birth--a king!

What these doom sayers overlooked was the fact that common people are far better than any king at figuring out what their wants and needs are. Once they got their hand on the levels of governmental power, government because much more responsive to the needs of the populous, and republics were thus proven to be a much better systems than monarchies.

Silencing people, even dumb ones , by taking away their vote is not a way to make the government better.

[Vesayen]

I am a very strong advocate of some sort of civics exam for voting rights.

HOWEVER I have yet to hear any standard which is fair, unbiased, impartial and effective....... till then, we can't have one.

The benifits of a civics exam restricting votings rights are not so great as to overshadow the downside of an unfair exam.

[Lancer]

Straight math, nothing but. Math knows no bias!

[Jon Miller]

We can make it based on ones understanding of Topology!

JM

[mrmitchell]

I liked Scott Adams's idea--everyone should vote, but there should be an intelligence test beforehand anyways.

"“Bob Smith has been elected President by 64% of the general public. That includes 99% of the people who believe China is ‘some sort of dishware’.”"

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/06/common_knowledg.html

[Caligastia]

Just make it a basic, impartial civics test. That would weed out more than enough dummies to make a positive difference.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lancer
Straight math, nothing but. Math knows no bias!

It's biased in favor of mathematicians.