Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Elections: Should Intelligence Tests Be Imposed?  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1522 times:

Voters who help determine the course of their country are the backbone of democracy. The political decisions of a large and powerful country often have fundamental effects on the fate of the world.

By comparison, whether or not -- for example -- you can turn right on a red light in California is of far less importance than you might be told is the case at the Department of Motor Vehicles. But the truth is that if you're not smart enough to understand that you can turn right on red, but instead believe that a red light means that you're barred from doing that even when it's safe, then you could very well be too dumb to carry a driver's license. So saith the state.

Given this, why, then, are intelligence tests not required in order to qualify someone for the vote?

If you're 18 years old, a U.S. citizen, and a resident of California, and not either a felon or ex-felon, you have the right to cast a ballot in any election for political office held in your area.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if you're Einstein's successor, on one hand, or a blithering idiot, on the other. You can cast a vote, given the above conditions, whether or not you understand the diffence between George Bush,the President, or Kate Bush, the singer.

Is this really the best way to run a democracy?

I understand that suffrage is fundamental, etc. But isn't the existence of an informed citizenry fundamental to democracy? And if so, isn't it presumed that the citizenry that is informed can actually process that information?

We all understand that political office can be held by any old idiot. However, does this mean that the electorate can be made of complete idiots? And if so, why?

Thanks in advance for your cool answers.  

[Edited 2006-06-12 23:21:58]

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1522 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Is this really the best way to run a democracy?

Yes.

Maybe we should give two or three votes to people who show even superior intelligence? They obviously know what they are doing better than the rest of us. Better yet, let's just have a group of people who obviously know better choose our leaders for us.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1510 times:

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 1):
Maybe we should give two or three votes to people who show even superior intelligence? They obviously know what they are doing better than the rest of us. Better yet, let's just have a group of people who obviously know better choose our leaders for us.

Maybe we should, though.

If the point is to run a country by electing the best of us to office, then why shouldn't meritocracy apply to their supposed bosses -- the electorate?

Would you trust a dummy to represent the interests of state? If not, then why should any of the people who elect those representatives themselves be dummies?  Confused


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1507 times:

A dumb persons opinion counts as much as an intelligent persons. Otherwise it wouldnt be democracy, it would be a two tier system with the upper tier dictating to the lower tier.

User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4375 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1500 times:

What do you get when you take the backbone of democracy out of a democracy?

Not a democracy.

And, any reform towards your idea would never, ever, ever happen.



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1500 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 2):

It all sounds fine and dandy on paper, to have the best of the best run the country. But it just wouldn't work out. Who would choose? It's a very slippery slope to go down. Communism looked good in theory, and we all see how that turned out.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20354 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
However, does this mean that the electorate can be made of complete idiots? And if so, why?

Well if you want half of the Republicans disqualified from voting, go right ahead.  stirthepot 



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
A dumb persons opinion counts as much as an intelligent persons

I understand the principle, but is this really a good way to run a country? What if the voter -- for example -- is so dumb that he basically always votes the wrong way? What if he can't even read or write? What if he thinks, for example, that "Republican" sounds like "pub" and votes accordingly because he likes beer? This is worse than a wasted vote; it's a vote that insults the essence of democracy. It makes a joke of the election process.

And, if suffrage is all that matters, why not give the vote to extraordinarily intelligent young people? What if you're 15 but more intelligent than 99.99 per cent of all 18 year olds? Why shouldn't you be able to vote? And, wouldn't allowing someone to vote if he's intelligent enough actually expand the franchise in these cases?

Thanks in advance.  

[Edited 2006-06-12 23:28:03]

User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1476 times:

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 4):
What do you get when you take the backbone of democracy out of a democracy?

Not a democracy.

If that's true, then why are felons and ex-felons disqualified from voting? There are probably more than a million felons or ex-felons in the United States.

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 5):
It all sounds fine and dandy on paper, to have the best of the best run the country. But it just wouldn't work out. Who would choose? It's a very slippery slope to go down. Communism looked good in theory, and we all see how that turned out.

That may be true at first glance, but aren't we resourceful enough to try to figure something out?

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6):
Well if you want half of the Republicans disqualified from voting, go right ahead

LOL.  Wink


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1474 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 7):
I understand the principle, but is this really a good way to run a country? What if the voter -- for example -- is so dumb that he basically always votes the wrong way? What if he can't even read or write? What if he thinks, for example, that "Republican" sounds like "pub" and votes accordingly because he likes beer? This is worse than a wasted vote; it's a vote that insults the essence of democracy. It makes a joke of the election process.

There is no wrong way to vote, theres only a personal decision between you and the ballot, and however you come to that decision is your choice.

No vote insults the essence of democracy, infact each voluntary vote cast reinforces it whatever the circumstances surrounding it.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1468 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 9):
There is no wrong way to vote, theres only a personal decision between you and the ballot, and however you come to that decision is your choice.

What about my examples, though? What if the voter votes for Jeb Bush because he thinks that Jeb is Kate's brother? What if the voter votes for Democrats because he thinks that the word "Democrat" sounds like "them old cats" (  Yeah sure ), and he's both a cat lover and hard of hearing?

Why wouldn't the participation of these people be deemed an insult to the idea that an informed electorate is the fundamental basis for democracy?

And what justification for withholding the vote until the age of 18 would you give to someone like TV's fictional Doogie Howser, M.D., who at a tender age might have made even Mensa members hide their IQ results in shame?

[Edited 2006-06-13 00:00:29]

User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1468 times:

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 5):
Communism looked good in theory, and we all see how that turned out.

Umm how is a fiscal policy related to government? It always amazes me that McCarthy era people think of the Russian government as 'communists' when in reality it was always and absolute dictatorship. The principal reason it failed was the government was oppresive. If the government had been more about what can we do for you instead of what can we do TOO you, the wall would indeed be working the other way as thier propaganda stated.

Now does that mean that communisim would work in a democracy, not necessarily. It certainly would not work in the US where greed is good and always will be.

That being said; we already do have an intelligence test, it's called the electoral college. if this was a DIRECT democracy as you seem to think ASF, you are right, there should be some proof the ballot can be read and properly implimented, but anything other then being able to vote for the candidate they believe in would be  redflag 


User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1456 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 11):
It certainly would not work in the US where greed is good and always will be.

Except many people are inherently greedy, and strive for power, and this clashes with the idea that everyone is equal. And let's not start with the concept that people wouldn't work as hard since everyone gets the same no matter what.

Different topic for a different thread.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1452 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 10):
What about my examples, though? What if the voter votes for Jeb Bush because he thinks that Jeb is Kate's brother? What if the voter votes for Democrats because he thinks that the word "Democrat" sounds like "them old cats", and he's both a cat lover and hard of hearing?

A voter can vote based on whatever criteria they themselves want, they can flip a coin for all the system actually cares. If they arent making the choice based on reality then its a failure of the parties in the system, not the voter and not the system itself.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 10):
Why wouldn't the participation of these people be deemed an insult to the idea that an informed electorate is the fundamental basis for democracy?

No, it should be deemed a failure of the parties that they havent managed to reach these voters and talked to them in a way or language that they would understand so they can make an informed choice. Everyone is reachable, its just noone tries these days.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 10):

And what justification for withholding the vote until the age of 18 would you give to someone like TV's fictional Doogie Howser, M.D., who at a tender age might have made even Mensa members hide their IQ results in shame?

18 is the level of criminal responsability with adult punishment, so its only fitting that it should be the point at which you can vote. Yes, its an arbitrary limit but its an equal limit for everyone.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1441 times:

Fine.

If you want to take all those afternoon Rush Limbuagh listeners away from the GOP, that'll cost them quite a few elections, so fine with me.  Big grin


Seriously, are you out of your mind, AF? What kind of crap is that, basing democratic elections on intelligence?

Seems to me we've survived just fine the last 230 years without such a stupid concept, and I think we'll survive the next 230 or whatever it is, without it.

Unbelievable.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1437 times:

Black people are more likely to commit a crime, so prevent them voting and 'improve' the state. Men contribute more to the GDP of the state, and so pay more tax, so should have more say than women. Prevent women from voting. Etc.

Glad to see people from the right AND wrong side of the political spectrum agreeing on this one.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Okay then, how about intelligence tests before being allowed to run for office?


Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 16):
Okay then, how about intelligence tests before being allowed to run for office?

We already have them, they are called 'elections' - they prevent you from holding office if you are too intelligent.


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 10):
Why wouldn't the participation of these people be deemed an insult to the idea that an informed electorate is the fundamental basis for democracy?

Don't be an intellectual snob.

The failure is not the "stupid voter" - but the failure of a national educational system.

Sure we're always going to have stupid people. But if we have so many, as to effect the outcome of a national election, well then that's a failure of education.

Your solution is to cut the "stupid" people out of the equation. Well, why don't you spend more time on creating a world class educational system to educate the "stupid", and less time on long, verbose, intellectually snobby threads?

-UH60


User currently offlineIamcanadian From Canada, joined May 2001, 734 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Wow, this discussion is all over the place, isn't it?

1) Elections/voting have absolutely NOTHING to do with intelligence. Like it has been said in an earlier post, a vote is a personal opinion of what leader the voter sees fit to lead the country. It doesn't matter where that decision comes from, everyone has a right to an opinion.

2) Driving license tests are a poor analogy to "tests" for voting. The reason there are tests to get a driver's license is to keep the roads safe. A vote is not going to affect YOUR safety, or the people around you.

3) As for the current voting age, like RichardPrice said:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 13):
18 is the level of criminal responsability with adult punishment, so its only fitting that it should be the point at which you
can vote. Yes, its an arbitrary limit but its an equal limit for everyone

Why should 14 year olds vote when half the implications of the new leader's reforms won't affect them in the leader's term in office?



Shut up and calculate.
User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1405 times:

Mostly going to play devils advocate here, but will try and have some fun with this.

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 1):
Better yet, let's just have a group of people who obviously know better choose our leaders for us.

This is the base of the parlimentary system that most of the EU, Canada, Australia use, there is no direct vote for an individual leader. One votes for the party and the party "being more qualified to choose a leader does"

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 7):
What if the voter -- for example -- is so dumb that he basically always votes the wrong way?

Covered in earlier posts, there is no wrong vote, I would rather see Forrest Gump and Woody from Cheers voting than all of these so called intelligent people who dont vote.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 7):
And, if suffrage is all that matters, why not give the vote to extraordinarily intelligent young people? What if you're 15 but more intelligent than 99.99 per cent of all 18 year olds? Why shouldn't you be able to vote?

IIRC it wasnt until after Vietnam that the US through Const. Amendment lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 based on the fact that 18-20 year olds were getting drafted and shipped to war when they couldnt even vote, the same is now pretty much said about Alcohol having a 21 and above law.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 8):
If that's true, then why are felons and ex-felons disqualified from voting? There are probably more than a million felons or ex-felons in the United States.

When one commits a felony, they lose certain rights, owning a gun, voting, etc. They had those rights before they committed a felony. It was thier choice to commit that act and therefore put those rights into jepordy.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 10):
What about my examples, though? What if the voter votes for Jeb Bush because he thinks that Jeb is Kate's brother? What if the voter votes for Democrats because he thinks that the word "Democrat" sounds like "them old cats" ( ), and he's both a cat lover and hard of hearing?

There has been plenty of elections won based souly on name recognition. Kennedy's-Bush's-Clintons-Adams-Roosevelts-and many more on the state and local level.

Quoting Iamcanadian (Reply 19):
A vote is not going to affect YOUR safety, or the people around you.

It might not in Canada, but in the current state of partisan politics and scare tactics there is one side like this gem.
Less than a week before the third anniversary of 9/11, The Vice President said, "it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again." Not only would be hit again, but we will "be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1382 times:

Thanks to everyone for their excellent replies.  Smile

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 20):
Covered in earlier posts, there is no wrong vote, I would rather see Forrest Gump and Woody from Cheers voting than all of these so called intelligent people who dont vote.

But why? Would you trust Forrest and Woody with your life's savings? If not, then why trust them with electing people who could raid your life's savings, through taxation?

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 20):
IIRC it wasnt until after Vietnam that the US through Const. Amendment lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 based on the fact that 18-20 year olds were getting drafted and shipped to war when they couldnt even vote, the same is now pretty much said about Alcohol having a 21 and above law.

I understand the principle. This is an important consideration, but perhaps not the only one.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 20):
When one commits a felony, they lose certain rights, owning a gun, voting, etc. They had those rights before they committed a felony. It was thier choice to commit that act and therefore put those rights into jepordy.

That's definitely true, but why, then, do some states allow ex-felon re-enfranchisement, and others do not? Where is the principle where there is such inconsistency?

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 20):
There has been plenty of elections won based souly on name recognition. Kennedy's-Bush's-Clintons-Adams-Roosevelts-and many more on the state and local level.

Yes, but the problem I posed was that name recognition in the case of Kate Bush would be utterly mistaken.

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 5):
It all sounds fine and dandy on paper, to have the best of the best run the country. But it just wouldn't work out. Who would choose? It's a very slippery slope to go down. Communism looked good in theory, and we all see how that turned out.

Why not impose a basic IQ test? I believe that the armed forces require an IQ test of its recruits, or used to.

Quoting Iamcanadian (Reply 19):
1) Elections/voting have absolutely NOTHING to do with intelligence. Like it has been said in an earlier post, a vote is a personal opinion of what leader the voter sees fit to lead the country. It doesn't matter where that decision comes from, everyone has a right to an opinion.

Everyone has an opinion on what to do with your money, as well. Does that mean that they should have any say in what happens to it? You're giving them that right, indirectly, by permitting them to vote for politicians who make promises that may be very foolish. Isn't it better not to have dumb voters who believe the wrong kinds of promises and act accordingly?

Quoting Iamcanadian (Reply 19):
2) Driving license tests are a poor analogy to "tests" for voting. The reason there are tests to get a driver's license is to keep the roads safe. A vote is not going to affect YOUR safety, or the people around you

Politicians' decisions can easily affect your safety by enacting or carrying out laws that are promised to voters.

Quoting Iamcanadian (Reply 19):
Why should 14 year olds vote when half the implications of the new leader's reforms won't affect them in the leader's term in office?

Arguably, young people are the ones with the most stake in the future, since they will spend the longest time there.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 18):
Sure we're always going to have stupid people. But if we have so many, as to effect the outcome of a national election, well then that's a failure of education.

That's a good point to consider, but consider how our education system is determined in the first place -- by voters.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 16):
Okay then, how about intelligence tests before being allowed to run for office?

That's worthy of consideration, I think.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 13):
No, it should be deemed a failure of the parties that they havent managed to reach these voters and talked to them in a way or language that they would understand so they can make an informed choice. Everyone is reachable, its just noone tries these days.

Why is the parties' fault alone, however? Parties give the voters what they want, after all. And if you have an uneducated and unintelligent electorate who want unachievable things, isn't that part of the problem?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 14):
Seriously, are you out of your mind, AF? What kind of crap is that, basing democratic elections on intelligence?

America stands for the best of many things. Why not have the best of all electorates?

Also, no one has disputed that democracies work only if the electorate is educated. "Educated" implies some minimal degree of intelligence, is part of my point. Thus, there is an implicit requirement of intelligence that is bound up in the right to vote -- a requirement that unfortunately no longer seems to exist.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13029 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1355 times:

Intellegence tests or any similar requirements are illegal and unconstitutional per Supreme Court decisions and Civil right laws and Voter Rights Acts passed in the mid-1960's. In a number of Southern states, Blacks would get test that a College Professor would have trouble with. Most whites really didn't have to take any test, or they were given some token one. Such tests were given and used to prevent Blacks from voting, in violation of the Constitution.
Yes, I think one to vote should be aware of the world around them, something about the canidates beyond the sound bite commercials. Rules should also limit those whom are 'mentally slow' from voting. In the USA, voting is such a sacred right, one cannot do what the intital poster suggests.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1349 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 22):
Intellegence tests or any similar requirements are illegal and unconstitutional per Supreme Court decisions and Civil right laws and Voter Rights Acts passed in the mid-1960's.

I do realize that. And I do recognize, as well, that, as you say:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 22):
In the USA, voting is such a sacred right, one cannot do what the intital poster suggests.

But, by the same, token, how can you achieve the following:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 22):
Rules should also limit those whom are 'mentally slow' from voting.

...if there are no intelligence tests that may be used accordingly? Should only those who are so "slow" as to require medical attention, for example, be barred from voting? And, I wonder, why would this be fairer than preventing children who are incredibly intelligent from voting? After all, the intelligence of such children can also be medically (or scientifically) proved, just as the "slowness" of certain others can be indicated through psychiatric or psychological tests.

[Edited 2006-06-13 05:52:59]

User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3499 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1346 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):

Given this, why, then, are intelligence tests not required in order to qualify someone for the vote?

Yeah, that's a great idea. Let's take the voices away from the millions of people in this country who haven't been fortunate enough to enjoy a quality education. It sure kept the blacks from voting in the south during the '60s...



Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
25 AerospaceFan : Wouldn't you agree that someone can be intelligent even without being educated? Further, isn't it something of a "cop-out" to blame everything on "th
26 RichardPrice : No, it is only part of the problem so far as if the parties themselves fail to reach these people. Election literature can be found in many languages
27 Post contains images Skidmarks : Back in the early days of Parliament in the British isles, office and votes were only allowed for a small percentage of the population - those with mo
28 Oli80 : It is interesting that you bring this topic to light as I was discussing it with some people from work last week. We were talking about how the Latin
29 AerospaceFan : But that's the system we have today, anyway, here in the 'States. Certain groups of people are prevented from voting -- those under the age of 18 yea
30 RichardPrice : Immigrants I dont believe should get voting rights until they become citizens, otherwise you essentially have given foreigners a say in the countries
31 Post contains images Skidmarks : You actually missed my point here. I was referring to the system that only allowed people with money and power to have a vote. Your average man in th
32 Darrenthe747 : "All men are created equal..." Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson 1776. "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this co
33 AerospaceFan : That's not the same thing, however. For example, minimum asset qualifications are not required for entrance into the professions precisely because th
34 Darrenthe747 : true, but the huge difference is that IQ tests for jobs are a means of narrowing down the stack of qualified applicants. No company would post an ad
35 AerospaceFan : Agreed, but equality does not apply in every respect. For example, although God creates all men as equals, the occurrence of events after birth may m
36 AerospaceFan : But if so, these companies have merely taken advantage of the fact that aptitude testing was already done through entrance and course-related examina
37 Darrenthe747 : well if you start there, then where could it lead to? voting is the most FUNDAMENTAL part of a democracy, and if you deny a citizen of that democracy
38 RichardPrice : AerospaceFan, you are talking about turning a democracy into a multitier dictatorship with a second class of citizen- would you really risk implementi
39 Darrenthe747 : couldn't have said it better myself. as soon as a law-abiding citizen who pays his taxes is no longer allowed to vote for the simple fact that he has
40 LTBEWR : By 'mentally slow' I meant people who are 'retarded' or 'mentally challanged', that is with I.Q.'s of less than 85, are not able to get past 3rd grade
41 AerospaceFan : All right. Then that corresponds to a figure of 15%, rather than the 33.3% I mentioned above. It's a question of degree, then.
42 AerospaceFan : I like the way you have highlighted some of the relevant concepts to this discussion, including the question of fairness. As I've repeatedly noted, i
43 Post contains images B777-700 : You mean we dont have that now, just with the rich controlling the poor?
44 Newark777 : No, since then I wouldn't be able to vote!1 Signed, Ba757gla
45 Iamcanadian : Actually, that's not quite the way it works. The Canadian system is actually more similar to the American than you think. There is already a politici
46 RichardPrice : What he meant was that we dont get to choose that Prime Minister specifically. The head of state, in Australia, Canada and the UK that would be the Q
47 Post contains images Iamcanadian : Actually, that system is NOT the Canadian system, but thanks for coming out. I've got some bad news for you Mr. Price, but the Queen in Canada is no
48 Post contains images JGPH1A : Blimey, I new immigrants were getting spoiled, but nationalising them is taking it too far. Immigrants should be subject to market forces and get cap
49 Gunsontheroof : Given that the public is constituted of everybody, I would say so.
50 Post contains links RichardPrice : Actually she does, and you are correct - the Governer General represents her within the country (just as the position does in Australia) and carrys o
51 Darrenthe747 : again I will ask the question... if you cut certain working class folks who pay taxes out of their right to vote, isn't that taxation without represen
52 RichardPrice : Yes it is, but today there are large portions of society that already have taxation without representation - sales taxes on goods purchased by childr
53 Doona : So America does not stand for the best when it comes to democracy and universal equality? Cheers Mats
54 Post contains images Skidmarks : Thank you, you nomadic South African reject! Andy
55 Post contains images TransIsland : While I always try to make my students understand that uneducated and unintelligent are two completely different concepts, traditional intelligence t
56 Gunsontheroof : Out of curiosity, what/where do you teach?
57 Ctbarnes : Well, considering such tests were used to actively exclude certain racial groups from the polls (which is why they were declared unconstitutional), th
58 AerospaceFan : I have no desire to exclude any racial group. To the contrary! But since all racial groups are equally intelligent, a true intelligence test would not
59 Post contains links Nancy : The laws vary by state http://ici.umn.edu/products/prb/111/app.html But in most states you can't vote if you have been found mentally incompetent. If
60 Post contains images Texan : Yes it does. Otherwise people like you couldn't vote Seriously, what is a democracy if not the will of the people? The so called "idiots" you speak o
61 AerospaceFan : I do believe that America stands for democracy, but again, as I said, it stands for operation of that democracy by an informed electorate. If there is
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Should Muslim Protesters Be Prosecuted? posted Sun Feb 5 2006 11:06:54 by Cosec59
Should Underage Soldiers Be Allow To Drink Beer? posted Sun Jun 5 2005 06:20:02 by FlagshipAZ
Should Election Day Be A National Holiday? posted Thu Apr 28 2005 21:47:08 by SLC1
How Long Should Inter Milan Be Banned For? posted Fri Apr 15 2005 10:44:01 by Oly720man
Should The Veto Be Available In The UN posted Sat Dec 4 2004 11:43:58 by HAWK21M
Should Athletic Coaches Be History Teachers? posted Fri Oct 29 2004 08:09:12 by Nonrevman
Should Lennon's Killer Be Released? posted Sat Oct 9 2004 21:02:44 by Saintsman
Genocide In The Sudan-Should UN Troops Be Sent? posted Fri Jul 23 2004 17:51:25 by Go Canada!
Should Maris's Record Be Reinstated? posted Thu May 27 2004 04:15:31 by TriJetFan1
Should Passing HIV Be A Crime? posted Sat Jun 28 2003 16:05:12 by Matt D