PDA

View Full Version : Should Low-IQ People Be Allowed to Vote?



Nachtengel
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 03:33 PM
Should people with low IQs be allowed to vote? Some people have the IQ of imbeciles, would it be sensible to expect them to be capable of getting involved in the political process of voting? Which would be the lowest IQ range that should be allowed to vote? Please discuss. :)

Snowman
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 04:23 PM
I don't really think it's all the time the IQ that decie what people vote for a party. It's more about how they are apart of the society and how they are raised.

I'm very uncertain where to put the limit, although all mental handicapt and forgein people shud not be allowed to vote. That is a point I stand hard on.

What about you? What range of level of IQ do you want the voters to be in?

GroeneWolf
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 05:51 PM
Should people with low IQs be allowed to vote? Some people have the IQ of imbeciles, would it be sensible to expect them to be capable of getting involved in the political process of voting? Which would be the lowest IQ range that should be allowed to vote? Please discuss. :)

I am rereading the Bell Curve and according to the researches they quote those with lower IQ's vote less anyway. Real imbeciles should be barred from voting anyway. Also the right to vote should be restricted at minumium to people whose has been born here as has both his/her parents, unless they are willing to face special tests or have done exceptional services to the nation.

Also do you have notinced that the media portray the electorate of anti-immigration parties as low class, uneducated and other things. But are remarkebly silent with such terms when it comes to (far)left-parties that traditionaly target those groups

Frozen_Thunder
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 11:05 PM
For a time I worked with retarded people in a group home caring for them and whatnot. I attended an agency training meeting one time where they stressed the virtue of taking these retarded individuals (most retarded beyond real functioning, not just kinda slow) to the polls and letting then exercise their right to vote, I was shocked and appalled.

I don't know about a IQ requirement as much as some sort of familiarity with the issues. I think the majority of Obama voters had no clue of his politics when they voted for him, a number of people have done research on this and so many couldn't tell you even one of his political plans or positions.

Kogen
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 11:54 PM
I don't know about a IQ requirement as much as some sort of familiarity with the issues. I think the majority of Obama voters had no clue of his politics when they voted for him, a number of people have done research on this and so many couldn't tell you even one of his political plans or positions.

This is true. A friend of mine online who is an American voted for Obama. When at the ballad, he said he had to vote for several people for a senate or something; he did not know who a single one of them were and just did it randomly.

I am entirely sure that him and millions of other American voters are the same. They vote for what the media tells them to without having the slightlest clue about what they are doing.

Democracy is false.

EQ Fighter
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 12:31 AM
Todesengel


Some people have the IQ of imbeciles,
Ok!
That was funny!
It is my impression that most people in this society ARE Imbeciles, high IQ or not.
Because, the ones with high IQs are simply Imbeciles with more incorrect information, and prove how fast they can recite it.

Todesengel


Should people with low IQs be allowed to vote?

Sure!
As long as they are versed on who and what, they should vote for. What do you think the "News Media" is all about. :D

ChaosLord
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 12:49 AM
I am rereading the Bell Curve and according to the researches they quote those with lower IQ's vote less anyway. Real imbeciles should be barred from voting anyway. Also the right to vote should be restricted at minumium to people whose has been born here as has both his/her parents, unless they are willing to face special tests or have done exceptional services to the nation.

Also do you have notinced that the media portray the electorate of anti-immigration parties as low class, uneducated and other things. But are remarkebly silent with such terms when it comes to (far)left-parties that traditionaly target those groups

Then according to the bell curve the majority of voters are representative of mediocrity - a dunce equilibrium. That will give you what the current populace wants in a government since it's representative of them. In this case - incompetent and gullible.

As for having a minimum requirement for voting. I don't think that should be implemented as it strips one of their constitutional right to vote. What's needed is more education and research of the candidates. It should be common sense to someone who is going to vote to research their politicians.

Nachtengel
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 12:56 AM
I don't really think it's all the time the IQ that decie what people vote for a party. It's more about how they are apart of the society and how they are raised.
Correct, we can't influence this, but we can at least exclude people who have no idea what they vote for no matter the way they are raised, because of their inability to differentiate.


I'm very uncertain where to put the limit, although all mental handicapt and forgein people shud not be allowed to vote. That is a point I stand hard on.
I agree, that's what I meant.


What about you? What range of level of IQ do you want the voters to be in?
I don't believe in voting very much, but as I said, I would exclude at least those who would qualify as medically imbecile.


Todesengel


Ok!
That was funny!
It is my impression that most people in this society ARE Imbeciles, high IQ or not.
Because, the ones with high IQs are simply Imbeciles with more incorrect information, and prove how fast they can recite it.
I was talking about the medical condition of imbecility.


As for having a minimum requirement for voting. I don't think that should be implemented as it strips one of their constitutional right to vote.
How about repatriation of immigrants aliens, it's not ok because it strips them from constitutional rights? Amending constitutions or rewriting them is possible. :)


What's needed is more education and research of the candidates. This should be common sense to someone who is going to vote for their politicians anyways.
How exactly do you educate retards?

Dagna
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 01:28 AM
It is my impression that most people in this society ARE Imbeciles, high IQ or not.
Wrong, and by the way, I believe it is rather funny how on the one hand people on this forum complain about the supposed imbecility of the masses, but on the other hand brag about the "superiority of the white race". Most Germanics are not imbecile. They are perfectly capable of independent and critical thinking, but totalitarianism which has been the rule in many Germanic countries during the most recent times has taught them not to make use of it.

Neophyte
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 01:55 AM
Which would be the lowest IQ range that should be allowed to vote? Please discuss. :)

I would not restrict voting on IQ alone. That would not be restrictive enough, and at the same time too narrow. I want a society where you will have to qualify for the vote by performing some service or beneficial effort, like in Starship Troopers or something.

If then an imbecile could qualify, so be it. But I would hold that for unlikely.

Vindefense
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 02:28 AM
Sure, raising the qualifications of voters will ensure that only the worthy participate. Hopefully though, this small number of people are critical enough to realize that democracy is a fraud. As long as there are more than 2 parties to choose from the majority is never truly represented. The less people that vote, the more apparent it will be. So, for this reason I am for limiting voters as it should be easily visible to those with higher IQs.

Personally, I participate on the local level and only consent to their use of my tax money. As for the State and Federal level, never.

ChaosLord
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 03:00 AM
How about repatriation of immigrants aliens, it's not ok because it strips them from constitutional rights? Amending constitutions or rewriting them is possible. :)


Well, truthfully, since illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens they do not have any rights under our constitution.

EQ Fighter
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 06:13 AM
Todesengel

I was talking about the medical condition of imbecility.Yes I know what you were talking about.
I was making an ironic Joke.

Dagna

I believe it is rather funny how on the one hand people on this forum complain about the supposed imbecility of the masses, but on the other hand brag about the "superiority of the white race".I don’t think I have ever Bragged about the “Superiority” of the "White Race" on this or any other forum.

In fact I have even stated that on this forum that I am NOT a white supremacist or National Socialist.

First of all to be superior you have to succeed. Which in the last 50 some odd years the "white race" has not been doing.

Personally I think the "white race" should be worried as to how it is going to survive the next 50 years, as opposed to feeling superior.

That is just my two cents.

RoyBatty
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 06:33 AM
Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be much correlation between a high IQ and making rational and informed political choices. Therefore imo there wouldn't be much point in restricting voting rights to the segment of society with supposedly enhanced mental capabilities.

In a number of countries with a "freedom and democracy" type background there appears to be a trend which suggests that their populations have been deliberately dumbed down by the media and the school / educational system. In other words, they've been programmed and continue to be programmed and therefore their thought processes and responses to given social stimuli can be predicted and influenced.

There are some books on the topic which may shed some light on what's happening such as "The deliberate dumbing down of America" which discusses extreme social engineering programs in US schools and universities. Most of us should be familiar with how the state and media in Germany attempts to (and often succeeds in) conditioning citizens. In the UK there is a heavy social engineering onslaught underway in schools, the workplace and the media.

Many people whether intelligent or not allow themselves to be programmed.

The DDOA book can be downloaded here:

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

D. H. Yeager
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 06:34 AM
I believe the only reason why the current U.S. Pres. was elected is due to the fact that the general population didn't understand the situation therefore they could be lied to, which they were. They then voted for lies which has put the U.S. in a thickening mess. The outcome of the U.S. election may or may not have been changed if the voting pool cosisted of high IQs only but that matters not because by limiting the voting pool unfavorable things will happen. It is a good thought though.

GroeneWolf
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 01:23 PM
Then according to the bell curve the majority of voters are representative of mediocrity - a dunce equilibrium. That will give you what the current populace wants in a government since it's representative of them. In this case - incompetent and gullible.

The mean of the average politician is probaly slightly above that of the average voter. They will vote for people they can associate with, but appear to be slightly above them. Still not realy good.


As for having a minimum requirement for voting. I don't think that should be implemented as it strips one of their constitutional right to vote.

Do not know how it is or was in America, but here in the 19th Netherlands voting was restricted to Dutch males who payed a certain amount of taxes. The right to vote troughout history has always been restricted based on certain criteria. It only untill recently that wider groups, for good or ill, where alowed to vote.

Patrioten
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 06:38 PM
If by barring people with an average or below average IQ from voting we manage to weed out the people who because of tradition and disinterest vote for leftist parties due to their economical policies but who hold traditionalist views on social issues, while simultaneously we increase the number, or share of voters who vote for leftist parties because of both their economical and social policies, what have we in reality achieved?

You do not find a higher tendency for traditionalism among intelligent people, in fact I would think the correlation to be the opposite in today's society. There might be a slight to average tendency among the more intelligent of holding liberal leaning as opposed to socialist leaning views, but it's not liberalism we're after, it's traditionalism (albeit in somewhat different forms).

What we need to do is to find a way to channel the traditionalist sentiments found among average to slightly below average intelligent "working men and women" and ensure that their often traditionalist leaning sentiments on social issues are being heard and represented in the political process.
As I wrote in another thread:


A major problem with our current democratic system as I see it is the way that voters only get to choose inbetween different parties but don't get to have their say on specific issues. Why should you as a voter be forced to "take the good with the bad"? If I want the economical policies of a particular party but not their social policies, why should I not be able to use my vote to distinguish between the two, and inbetween specific issues altogether, and thus ensure the greatest level of influence possible over my own vote and democratic choice? A sort of referendum-democracy if you will.

There should be some sort of ballot system where voters can vote on the specific policy changes proposed by the different parties and not just on the party itself. The party must in turn present each change that they propose to make on the ballot sheet and let the voters decide. If they don't get a big enough majority for a specific policy change, then they do not get a mandate for implementing that particular policy. If not enough voters participate in voting on that policy, for or against it, then the vote is made void and no change is implemented. This way radicals wouldn't be able to fly their radicalism under the radar while they get their votes on monetary issues.

Had this system been in place back when our democracies were young I am confident that our societies would have looked alot different today. The leftist radicals would never have had enough votes to implement their radical social agenda and would have had to settle for economical reforms which was the only real mandate that was given to them by their voters. Under this system, a literacy test would also be needed to weed out unfit individuals from voting.

It's the electoral process, not the electorate, which is the main problem. The way that economical policies, class warfare, has been used to mask radical social policies which would have been thrown out by the electorate at that time, by both rich and poor.

The people must be able to, and be forced to, make a distinction between the economical and social policies promoted by political parties. The choice cannot simply be one of economical reform vs economical status quo, the choice must be economical reform vs economical status quo AND social reform vs social status quo, and the voter must be able to make a distinction, and differentiate between the two, regardless of which party he supports and votes for.

If you want to vote for the social democrats because of their economical policies but say no to their social agenda then you should be able to do so. If you only care about the economical policies of a particular party and only want to vote on the basis of them you should be able to do so, but your vote should not count towards a mandate of change on any other issue but that which you have voted on.

Additionally, my democratic choice and influence should not depend on the existence or non-existence of a party which I am in complete agreement with. If, as has happened all over Europe, the right-wing parties move to the left, not because their voters asked them to but because the party elites wanted to, how am I as a voter supposed to make my voice heard? If my "democratic choice" boils down to liberal socialism vs social liberalism, there is no real choice anymore. The importance of a polarized political climate cannot be overstated, without an ideological opposition, there is no real choice and the people will be forced to choose between plague or cholera.

Sigurd
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 07:06 PM
Those truly stupid, and incapable of rational judgment, should logically be barred from casting their votes. Other than that, it matters little whether we restrict voting to those more intelligent or not --- often enough, voting behaviour is not a question of intelligence, but one of gullibility, and gullibility is not linked to intelligence: The less intelligent ones believe what they're told through propaganda, the more intelligent ones believe what they're told by being dished selective reading. :shrug

Ward
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 09:58 PM
If by barring people with an average or below average IQ from voting we manage to weed out the people who because of tradition and disinterest vote for leftist parties due to their economical policies but who hold traditionalist views on social issues, while simultaneously we increase the number, or share of voters who vote for leftist parties because of both their economical and social policies, what have we in reality achieved?

You do not find a higher tendency for traditionalism among intelligent people, in fact I would think the correlation to be the opposite in today's society. There might be a slight to average tendency among the more intelligent of holding liberal leaning as opposed to socialist leaning views, but it's not liberalism we're after, it's traditionalism (albeit in somewhat different forms).

What we need to do is to find a way to channel the traditionalist sentiments found among average to slightly below average intelligent "working men and women" and ensure that their often traditionalist leaning sentiments on social issues are being heard and represented in the political process.

I agree with you, except that I don't necessarily think that working men are less intelligent, it's just that they're typically far less educated and thus less articulate than the liberal crowd. They haven't been exposed to all the academic junk in universities, but they're the people that actually produce the goods and services that keep our countries afloat. I think these folks just have to devote more of their intellect to practical matters.

Buchanan once said the only thing most liberal elites ever produce in their lives is "methane." :D I know if I was lost in a forest out in the middle of nowhere, I'd take the intellect of the average farmer or car mechanic over a Harvard liberal professor in a heartbeat.

Looking at it from another angle, if those judges who let child rapists off with barely even a slap on the wrist are shown to have all-around high IQs, then IQ testing must be deficient in measuring certain types of intelligence.

d gray
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 10:34 PM
I am not sure if you are asking the right question. Are dumb people as qualified to vote as smart people? absolutely not. Are they easier to manipulate and brainwash? Almost by definition, they are. Is it practical to have results from a Stanford-Binnett test ready to be used at the auction booth? probably not. With an average I.Q. around 85, will the african-american object to this policy? hell ya, they will, and the Media, would oust any politician involved.
The Correct question is, "should stupid people be allowed to breed" ?
I say no.

velvet
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 11:06 PM
I think IQ alone is not an adequate method to classify people who are to vote or not.

Surely, people with mental defects should not vote. But 'mad' professors with 170+IQ are no voting candidates either.

There should be a whole bunch of conditions to be allowed to take part in political life, much like it was some hundred years ago.

Democracy is anyway a screwed system, which even with a bunch of optimisations would still be screwed. But if we have to stick to it, then the working class, the part of people who actually create the wealth, should be the ones to vote.

The thinking elite is a pack of dreamers. I guess if one of the French revolutionaries would today listen to the slogans made out of their 'equality' demand, they would look at you this way :-O I honestly doubt that this has anything do to with their idea. Anyway, highly intelligent people tend to dream, see their optimised economy models, see their society models, whatever. It is all about an endless list of fulfilled preconditions which apply to every single human being, because in their elite world they do apply. You cant let those people decide over your laws and rules and your policies, because they have their heads in the clouds, and their feet too. For laws, rules and policies you need people with their feet on the ground.

So, IQ alone would indeed increase the problems that are inherent to the system democracy.

flemish
Friday, August 7th, 2009, 11:17 PM
You should be able to prove that you know something about politics, elections, etc. before being allowed to vote. If you're retarded and don't even know what a political party is, then you shouldn't be allowed to.
If an I.Q. minimum were established in the U.S. for potential voters, you could count on it ending up being declared unconstitutional even though barring people with very low I.Q.'s from voting is quite reasonable. It would keep a great number of negroes from voting.
Are psychotic people allowed to vote? I guess they are. It's scary thinking that someone might vote for a candidate, because the voices in their head told them to.

Sigurd
Friday, August 7th, 2009, 11:33 PM
It would keep a great number of negroes from voting.

The Black vote is reasonably irrelevant, anyhow. Candidates try to cater to them - this is perhaps why the Republicans have traditionally failed whenever they fielded a more liberal/moderate candidate, but were successful whenever they fielded a more conservative candidate.

Thing is - everyone goes on about how Bush only received 21% of the Black vote, and managed to narrowly squeeze through by a narrow 271-267 majority. But one thing has naught to do with the other.

As SwordOfTheVistula once correctly analysed - this close result was based upon Bush polling only 54% of the White vote, not on only polling 21% of the Black vote. For example, had Bush received the same 21% of the Black vote, but had only received 3% more of the White vote, i.e. 57%, it would have resulted in a landslide victory (339-199 IIRC).

Also - had not a single Black person voted for Bush, with the same 54% of the White vote ... this would have still resulted in a 269-269 draw. The Congress being majority Republican at the time, would have still elevated him into a presidential position. Goes to show that the claim that the Black vote is so important to the outcome of the US elections is a piece of oxen bollocks.

Thus far near enough 80% of the US are still White, so this is what makes the most impact on who gets elected, not the minority votes. It's the stupid, the pseudo-intellectuals and the naive within their own fellow folk, more often than not of Germanic extraction (the Italian-Americans and Greek-Americans are usually so conservative that they vote Republican anyhow. ;)), who are at fault, essentially.

By the way, I should clarify that I don't mean that voting Republican is the way forward. But voting Democrat is even a worser of two evils. And in either event, the Black vote is remarkably irrelevant to the outcome, even in reasonably close-fought elections. :shrug