Systematic Disenfranchisment, Good or Bad?

[Wiglaf]

I have been thinking about this, and I have come to the conclusion that stupid people should have less of a vote than more intelligent people (as determined by some sort of national IQ test). Recently this was attempted in the form of literacy tests but of course all the black people became mortally offended because they could not read, having just been slaves. Well you haven't been slaves for a while so what's the excuse now? Danny Glover and the guy who invented peanut butter were both black, so don't tell me it can't be done. Literacy tests would be a great way to make sure we don't get morons electing the leader of the free world, as happened with Bill Clinton, who managed to deceive everyone into thinking bin Laden was not a threat after not one but two terror attacks on the US. Bill Clinton

Furthermore, does anyone else find it a tad odd that the people voting in favor of same sex marriage are almost exclusively homosexual and in California? It seems to me that this is a clear case of voting for personal interests, rather than the good of society as a whole, which is of course the proper criterion for voting. After all if everyone voted just to make themselves rich, society would be run by rich people and the good people would get a raw deal. I took a political theory class so what I just said is accurate and legitimate. Therefore, it seems that to the best of our ability, we ought to restrict fat people from voting on food laws, gay people from voting on marriage amendments, etc etc, so that we can root out those who would undermine the integrity of the voting process.

I'm not really interested in people whining about this because like I said all of this is logically sound. After all we don't let felons vote, what was their great crime? It seems extending disenfranchisement to the stupid and the personally biased is the next logical step for humanity.

[Ninot]

Fat people

[Flubber]

Thanks man-- That was funny

[Kuciwalker]

The OP

The invalid poll

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Flubber


Thanks man-- That was funny

It is too bad you think the guy serving you fries in between coke runs is as qualified to judge who should be president as you are.

[C0ckney]

i think those who give their credit card details to strangers should not be allowed to vote.

[Wiglaf]

If you can think of a better way to get out of crashing into an old lady I'm all ears. In the meantime focus on the idea on its merits and not because there is a chip on your massive ass shoulder for not thinking of it first.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Teh OP

Teh invalid poll

QFT

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
If you can think of a better way to get out of crashing into an old lady I'm all ears. In the meantime focus on the idea on its merits and not because there is a chip on your massive ass shoulder for not thinking of it first.

when driving, i find that it's better not to crash into old ladies in the first place.

[Spec]

Wiggy is right...in some way...I suppose.

But it doesn't mean that if you serve fries for a living you're automaticly dumb....you coud just be an under-acheiver.

It would be like choosing an unbiased jury. But that cant happen when you're talkig about 300,000,000 people.

Not because you are intelligent that you are well informed also...For example, I know some intelligent poeple that still think that american cars are a good option...
I also know intelligent people that think that G.W. Bush is doing a good job...
I have a 135 IQ, am straight as a pole, and I am for gay marriage. What about that? I am not for gay people to adopt kids though. Because, in my mind, logically, it would create psycological problems for the child. I may be completly wrong though...How would I know? It all depends on the strenght of the childs caracter mostly, so it would be different for everyone. And if a child DOES have psycological problems, it would be too easy to blame the same sex parents...You see? There is to much to take into consideration.

Spec.

[Wiglaf]

I would say an IQ of 115 or higher should be required. Apparently that is the standard for being "bright" on the IQ scale. That would eliminate a lot of retards and make good votes count for more

I have a 135 IQ, am straight as a pole, and I am for gay marriage. What about that? I am not for gay people to adopt kids though. Because, in my mind, logically, it would create psycological problems for the child. I may be completly wrong though...How would I know? It all depends on the strenght of the childs caracter mostly, so it would be different for everyone. And if a child DOES have psycological problems, it would be too easy to blame the same sex parents...You see? There is to much to take into consideration.

What possible reason is there to get married if you're not looking for kids?

[CrONoS]

The OP could be resumed as a problem of cost/benefit.

Being an informed voter is too costly for my benefit

Who cares if I read a lot, if my vote always worth 1 votes.

[CrONoS]

Maybe you should only be allowed to vote if you own a land property.

[Wiglaf]

The OP could be resumed as a problem of cost/benefit.

Being an informed voter is too costly for my benefit

Who cares if I read a lot, if my vote always worth 1 votes.

Bingo, and smart people read more. At the very least, they have more sense to recognize prejudices/bad candidates on face.

[LordShiva]

But smart people figure out that their vote is essentially worthless, and, since they usually work high-paying jobs, that teh time spent voting and not working is unnecessarily costly.