Only above average IQ people should vote????
-
ATS?! Hahaha
Seriously, from my experience of surfing the web, that site has come up with more strange things than I dare to talk about.
I'd take anything said there with more than just a pinch of salt, I'd use the whole container.
-
This argument is elitist and has no place in a democracy. And, who would decide what is a sufficient level of intelligence should be? How would it be measured? I also think the argument that people of lesser IQ expect to be taken care of by those with a higher IQ. There are many "simple" ordinary folk who do not expect a handout. And, as Kwist pointed out, IQ does not equal wisdom. I've come across quite a few people who were "too smart for their own good" (as my father would say) - people who reached the height of their academics, but have no common sense.
-
The idea of an objective definition of an IQ has time and time again been proved to be scientific nonsense. Tests show test results to be very much culture- and education-dependent. I haven't looked at this particular case, but I think talking about IQ-s is mostly a kind of self-flattery. Your usefulness as a social being is more about what you do, not how you have placed tick marks on some stupid paper.
And taking an IQ test can also be practised. After taking one that looked much like one at architecture entrance exams, another one taken at the army some months later was very easy to pass.
Anssi
-
Remember democracy has many forms. Even the greatest champions of mass democracy and women's rights like John Stuart Mills had private reservations about decision making prowess of the so-called masses. I believe having to pander to popular whims of the voting pupblic can be a hinderance to progress in certain situations.
-
If that were imposed we would never have a conservative government
However that would also mean we would no longer be a democracy, mind you we don't actually have one today as the 'electoral college' vote diminishes the equal vote anyway.... hmmm.
-
The more I think about it the more I feel the current
way Government is elected and does business is very
outdated.We (society) found it necessary in the distance past to
elect representatives that would carry out our wishes
in some distant part of the Country which had become
the Capital City! I am talking about times before we
had TV, telephones, computers, text, emails, video
conferencing etc. At the time this was the only way
we could get things agreed and done.I really don't believe this has to be the situation today!
Why could we not have 'Politicians' that, number one,
have undergone SOME sort of formal training in this career
path, that would ONLY be allowed to deliver OUR wishes
on an ongoing basis / daily, considering current local
and regional circumstances and situations.In other words, he / she would be OUR employee and if
they are not toeing the line and carrying out our wishes
we kick them out of the job.Of course there would be a need for Long Term Planning
BUT again this should also be flexible. I think this model
COULD be developed with our current communication systems.In my opinion the ONLY reason we have the current Political
Structure is because of SCALE and the ONLY reason we still
have this situation is because Politicians like it as it is!Populations went into the Millions and the current system
made sense then as it often took days before a new law or
piece of legislation news filtered down to the guys living
in the sticks. This is NOT the case these days even in 3rd
World Countries.I say we should think about getting back to true around the
camp fire democracy!Mike
PS: I was NOT arguing FOR 'Only above average IQ people should
vote????' I was only tossing the notion up in theair for debate.
And from what I can gather Hitler's IQwas thought to be an
average of his lieutenants, which seems to have been well above
average, 132!PPS: Stu, you read me
-
Only people with above average intelligence should be allowed to run for office...
-
@paris said:
Only people with above average intelligence should be allowed to run for office...
Yeah...that'd be a big step up, huh?
-
Personally mike i think people are far too fickle to run a system such as you described, thered be out of work politicians all over the place at the first sign of trouble.
-
Mike, in your example the politicians would only be allowed to do "our" bidding....but who constitutes the "our" in your argument. How would you get everyone in a representative's district to agree on what their bidding is? Politicians would be waiting all the time while their constituents are debating on what they should do. We elect and send our representatives and senators to Washington to govern, and that means making tough choices that we don't always like; it is their duty to govern and NOT worry about pandering to their constituents and doing something that might jeopardize their re-election. maybe if we had term limits in congress they would stop worrying about elections and get down to the business of governing.
-
I don't think the public in general, taken as a whole,
are the slightest bit fickle. Something that springs
to mind!I don't know how many of you have ever watched 'Who
Wants to Be A Millionaire?' In this TV program the
contestant has three life-lines, Ask the Audience,
50/50 and Ask a Friend. From what I can gather the
'Ask the Audience' is the BEST option as the group
wisdom is correct over 90% of the time.Politicians and Political Parties fast become concerned
about their OWN survival NOT the wishes of the people
they represent. I will admit that many of them start
out with good intentions but they easily become sheep
and blindly follow the leader comes into play.What I am suggesting is a more hands-on system that we
all can be involved in on a daily / weekly basis as we
now have the technology to do this.As case in point! We are all aware of the current World
Financial Meltdown. I saw this coming for that past couple
of years as did many other ordinary people. There have
been a number of excellent BBC TV programs showing what
was happening in the Banking World and what would happen
if the breaks were not applied. Much of the discerning Public
have also been aware of this BUT sadly our elected Politicians
turned a blind eye or even worse did not understand what
was happening!Some daily / weekly opinion seeking might be no harm at all
and only help to focus or representative's minds on what they
have been elected for in the first place, to carry out OUR
wishes all be it under an agreed Policy. However is NO POINT
in blindly running with a policy that is NOT working and
needs to be re-planned. The World is changing far to quickly
for the this OLD OUTDATED SYSTEM of Government.If I were an elected Politician I would set up an 'Ask the
Audience' system whereby I would always be in touch with the
grass root opinion, which is generally quite sensible and
if taken from a BROAD BASE, is accurate most of the time, 90%
would do me fine
This system contrasts with current pack of Advisors and Lobbyists
that usually have self interest at heart most of the time.Mike
-
I think this is the sort of things the original US leaders had in mind. After all just to vote you had to be a landed white male. They thought you needed something that they (the landed white males) regarded as a sign of substance in order to lead all the others, including women. The result of the system they put in place was to eventually give the vote and other rights to more, not fewer.
That said, I'd like to see the government of this country (USA) run according to the constitution for once. It's the political system, not the law that is hurting us. I'd say not enough people are allowed to vote. Not enough people have access to office. I say the vote isn't fair enough yet. As was shown in 2000, the vote can be taken from all the people.
And there are plenty of very intelligent people who will never have access to office in our two party system as it stands.
Why worry about IQ which is another system of control like the tests once given to blacks to keep them from voting? What about education? If we could educate ourselves decently, we'd be much further ahead. I guess this is an easier solution, because we've given up on education.
People don't use their heads to vote anyway. What are you talking about?
If you are going to use draconian measures, how about REQUIRING THAT EVERYONE VOTES (they may vote for "none of the above") and that they do SOME sort of civil service at SOME point in their lives? As it is, only a fraction of citizens take part in the government. The only thing we are required to do in regards to government is fork over our money.
-
@solo said:
If that were imposed we would never have a conservative government
I was under the opposite impression, considering that - according to Pew - university attendees/graduates are more likely to be conservatives, while those with a high school education (or less) are considerably more likely to be liberals (and while I acknowledge that education does not necessarily equate to IQ, I don't think the bottom 30% of IQ scorers typically attend university).
@solo said:
However that would also mean we would no longer be a democracy, mind you we don't actually have one today as the 'electoral college' vote diminishes the equal vote anyway.... hmmm.
That is as it should be. The Founding Fathers did not intend for the US to be a democracy, but a representative republic. Democracy (as understood by the Founders) is basically mob rule, and the mob is swayed by emotion (just look at the latest "crisis du jour", whatever it may be, and observe the public's at-large reaction to it). A representative republic (generally) adds a necessary layer of insulation between the emotion and the policymaking.
The electoral college is a paramount example of balancing the interests of large and small (population) states, being the commingling of the proportional representation of the House of Representatives and the equal representation of the Senate. In this way, the regional differences in opinion and self-interest inherent in such a large nation are somewhat equalized - a candidate can't simply appeal to the voters of just a few very populous states and win election.
-
The party political system of Democracy evolved out of the British Parliament, where Reformist (Whigs and Chartists) formed interest groups and parties against the declining power of the Monarchy and the French Revolution where people of similar political inclinations sat next to each other in the general assembly (Reformers on the left side and Loyalists on the right). It was created/evolved in a time when society was highly stratified and the simple division between reformers and conservatives easily encompassed all political orientations. Take the British Labour party, it used to (before New Labour) have its core constituents based on, suprise, the labourers and Working class. Since the passing of manufacturing industry in Britain and rest of Western industrialised nations into service and information based economy where labour mobility is on the increase, old divisions are becoming increasingly meaningless as do their political party representational systems. Consequently European countries have witness decreasing number of electoral participation in the last 3 decade. I believe a new, more flexible way of political representation is urgently needed for mass Democracy to have any relavance for post-industrial societies.
-
Personally, I think there are plenty of good reasons for why the Founding Fathers shunned direct democracy in the US - and why we should continue to shun it: hysteria voting, ill-informed voting, directed/coerced voting, and more...
-
@chango70 said:
I believe a new, more flexible way of political representation is urgently needed for mass Democracy to have any relavance for post-industrial societies.
What do you mean by this? What kind of flexibility do you have in mind?
-
@rickw said:
Personally, I think there are plenty of good reasons for why the Founding Fathers shunned direct democracy in the US - and why we should continue to shun it: hysteria voting, ill-informed voting, directed/coerced voting, and more...
Without the Electoral College (democratic republic), States rights would be severely diminished and the last thing I want is for the power of the Federal government to be expanded.
-
@rickw said:
Personally, I think there are plenty of good reasons for why the Founding Fathers shunned direct democracy in the US - and why we should continue to shun it: hysteria voting, ill-informed voting, directed/coerced voting, and more...
That's not entirely true. Although some favored limiting the vote to "gentlemen of means," there were others who saw this as forming an oligarchy and favored franchising all free men - the later won out.
-
It is strange or Ironic however if indeed the Electoral college results in the US not technically being a democracy why they see the need to promote democracy all over the world in such an agressive way.
-
@daniel said:
@rickw said:
Personally, I think there are plenty of good reasons for why the Founding Fathers shunned direct democracy in the US - and why we should continue to shun it: hysteria voting, ill-informed voting, directed/coerced voting, and more...
That's not entirely true. Although some favored limiting the vote to "gentlemen of means," there were others who saw this as forming an oligarchy and favored franchising all free men - the later won out.
There's a difference between direct democracy and universal suffrage, and I think some people confuse (or equate) the two.
We have universal suffrage: any legal citizen of age can vote, with the obvious exception of criminals, of course. You don't even have to be alive in Chicago to be able to vote.
We do NOT have a direct democracy: we do not directly vote on every issue under the sun. Instead, we elect representatives [council members, aldermen, commissioners, representatives, senators, mayors, and governors] who decide on most issues on our behalf. There are special occasions where a local issue is decided by referendum (direct vote), but that is out of the norm. I hear some folks complain about their elected leader not voting "the will of the people", but that's not necessarily what they should be doing. There are times when the "will of the people" is derived from misleading or incomplete information (sometimes thanks to the media and their agenda), and leaders must go against that collective will to make a more informed decision. It may not be popular, and it may not be understood, but if we have selected for ourselves leaders of strong moral character, we should be able to trust their decisions, even if we don't understand them.
The problem is finding people we can trust like that. Most people with such qualifications usually don't go into politics, leaving us with Barney "There's No Crisis" Frank, et al. (Yes, I picked on Frank, but there are those of his ilk on both sides of the aisle - men and women who have violated the public trust and are unfit to lead).
Personally, I think any bailout (which I generally oppose) should have as a requirement that any congressional member who supported expanding the subprime lending program resign from office immediately upon passage of the bailout bill.
Advertisement