SV reX said:In reply to VolvoHeretic :
IQ results on the ballot would then have to be interpreted by voters, 50% of whom have below average intelligence.
Whats the george carlin quote.. "Think of someone with average intelligence and then realise 50% of the world is stupider than him"
Ohh found it.. "“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
I wish 30% of the population was as wise as George Carlin
Fueled by Caffeine said:SV reX said:In reply to VolvoHeretic :
IQ results on the ballot would then have to be interpreted by voters, 50% of whom have below average intelligence.
Whats the george carlin quote.. "Think of someone with average intelligence and then realise 50% of the world is stupider than him"
Ohh found it.. "“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
Nice, I read your first sentence and was like, not quite it.
I'm kind of a junkie for standup, and Carlin is one of the all-time greats.
SV reX said:In reply to VolvoHeretic :
IQ results on the ballot would then have to be interpreted by voters, 50% of whom have below average intelligence.
Is it wrong, that I've long held the thought you should have a bare minimum of intelligence and understanding of the constitution to be allowed to vote?
z31maniac said:SV reX said:In reply to VolvoHeretic :
IQ results on the ballot would then have to be interpreted by voters, 50% of whom have below average intelligence.
Is it wrong, that I've long held the thought you should have a bare minimum of intelligence and understanding of the constitution to be allowed to vote?
That's one of the campaign points of one of the Republican candidates. Interestingly, he's also probably the highest IQ person who was on that stage Wednesday.
But, that doesn't make him the best choice for president. There were one or 2 folks Wednesday who surprised.
Interestingly, I feel that tuna's point about presidential capability was addressed in the debate, regarding a rather sticky subject and how the President would realistically be able to influence it.
z31maniac said:SV reX said:In reply to VolvoHeretic :
IQ results on the ballot would then have to be interpreted by voters, 50% of whom have below average intelligence.
Is it wrong, that I've long held the thought you should have a bare minimum of intelligence and understanding of the constitution to be allowed to vote?
Also, if a civics test were a pre-req for voting, it would have to be mandatory that all high schools taught to that test. Which also may not be a bad thing. I mean, they _should_ be doing that already, but...
EDIT: Just found this, I've long wondered about what the actual citizenship test was we all hear about.
https://www.boundless.com/immigration-resources/citizenship-test-questions-and-answers/
z31maniac said:SV reX said:In reply to VolvoHeretic :
IQ results on the ballot would then have to be interpreted by voters, 50% of whom have below average intelligence.
Is it wrong, that I've long held the thought you should have a bare minimum of intelligence and understanding of the constitution to be allowed to vote?
I agree. But I feel a little guilty saying so.
Both parties seem to know it's a numbers game they can win if they pander to stupid people.
SV reX said:In reply to VolvoHeretic :
IQ results on the ballot would then have to be interpreted by voters, 50% of whom have below average intelligence.
Plus, I've known lots of high-IQ, intelligent people with no actual common sense whatsoever.
[edit]
We could go Full Heinlein and require military service as a prerequisite for voting rights.
I read a sci-fi book about 25 years ago and the humans living on a new planet got to choose their own form of government and they came up with basically jury duty.
Every citizen above the age of majority (barring mental disability or legal troubles) was tested and those who scored highly enough were put into the service pool. When it came time to have new leadership the central computer would spit out the names of the people who would serve and what their job would be for the next 2-4-6 years.
"Hey the new names dropped today, what did you get?"
"Aww man, I got Senator. Guess I have to do it so I can get back to my real career."
Just think about how nice it would be if the people serving did so because they wanted to be remembered for being good at their job and not what would get them reelected. No campaigning. No fund raising.
I never took debate class in high school, but it seemed odd to me that you would give some random point of view to a person and they would have to debate that viewpoint no matter how they felt about the subject. I guess it was just training to become a politician.
VolvoHeretic said:I never took debate class in high school, but it seemed odd to me that you would give some random point of view to a person and they would have to debate that viewpoint no matter how they felt about the subject. I guess it was just training to become a politician.
This was my favorite part about being on the debate team on the policy side. I'd have to create and evolve cases for both sides of an issue as well as ways to refute them. If you can't argue the opposite side, you don't really understand your own.
SV reX said:SV reX said:Is it wrong, that I've long held the thought you should have a bare minimum of intelligence and understanding of the constitution to be allowed to vote?
I agree. But I feel a little guilty saying so.
Both parties seem to know it's a numbers game they can win if they pander to stupid people.
Why would you feel guilty? We have to take a driver's test to be able to drive.
I'd be in favor of every voter having to take the 100 question citizenship test before voting in the next election, and requiring like an 80% passing score. No passey no votey. I'd take it. berkeley yeah I would. Then next election require it of any new voter.
Amend the Constitution, it's about time Congress did something productive.
In reply to KyAllroad :
Love that idea, would 100% back it.
In reply to KyAllroad :
What you are describing is Sortition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
Which was used in ancient Athens:
Athenian democracy developed in the 6th century BC out of what was then called isonomia (equality of law and political rights). Sortition was then the principal way of achieving this fairness. It was utilized to pick most[13] of the magistrates for their governing committees, and for their juries (typically of 501 men). Aristotle relates equality and democracy:
volvoclearinghouse said:SV reX said:SV reX said:Is it wrong, that I've long held the thought you should have a bare minimum of intelligence and understanding of the constitution to be allowed to vote?
I agree. But I feel a little guilty saying so.
Both parties seem to know it's a numbers game they can win if they pander to stupid people.
Why would you feel guilty? We have to take a driver's test to be able to drive?
I'd be in favor of every voter having to take the 100 question citizenship test before voting in the next election, and requiring like an 80% passing score. No passey no votey. I'd take it. berkeley yeah I would. Then next election require it of any new voter.
Amend the Constitution, it's about time Congress did something productive.
That's how they kept blacks from voting in the early 60s. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 did away with tests for voters.
I'm pretty sure we all know how that would play out in the press and the streets. It wouldn't be good.
In reply to Toyman! :
Beat me to it.
In reply to Toyman! :
The fact that one would consider a citizenship test a prerequisite to voting racist is in itself racist. It's basically saying, "We think *insert ethnic group* are too stupid to pass the test, so we'll call it racist to cover our own racism."
Like I said, make it required material in high school. Every adult has the right to a high school level education. This isn't the 1960's. If anyone can't pass that test, it's their fault, not the fault of systemic racism...
Unless the entire educational system is systemically racist. Which I could see an argument for that being the case.
EDIT: The reason for not having to pass a test to be able to vote isn't about race. Nor is it about party. It's because it's a helluva lot easier to pander to the lowest-common-denominator of voter. If politicians knew that everyone who was going to pull a lever that November had at least a middling understanding of our system of government, our country, and our economy, it would make their job campaigning not insignificantly more challenging.
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
I'm not disagreeing with you. The fact of the matter is it's against the 65 Voting Rights Act.
As to it being racist or not, it's no more racist than requiring an ID but we still have that uproar every time IDs are discussed as a voting requirement. It actually being racist or not is irrelevant as long as some people are willing to perceive it as racist. You are using logic where it's not allowed.
Toyman! said:In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
I'm not disagreeing with you. The fact of the matter is it's against the 65 Voting Rights Act.
As to it being racist or not, it's no more racist than requiring an ID but we still have that uproar every time IDs are discussed as a voting requirement. It actually being racist or not is irrelevant as long as some people are willing to perceive it as racist. You are using logic where it's not allowed.
It is against the VRA. Which is why we'd probably need an amendment to the Constitution. I agree it's a long shot, but so was a lot of stuff that happened throughout history.
The comparison with ID's (which are another good idea) is apt. Again, it's turning a racist argument around and using it to call racism. This cognitive dissonance is everywhere in society- not just politics.
Duke said:SV reX said:In reply to VolvoHeretic :
IQ results on the ballot would then have to be interpreted by voters, 50% of whom have below average intelligence.
Plus, I've known lots of high-IQ, intelligent people with no actual common sense whatsoever.
[edit]
We could go Full Heinlein and require military service as a prerequisite for voting rights.
Lol, you mean like the owner of that Twixxer company? 
Now is a good as a time and place as any to unveil my long held belief about how elections should run in this country.
Lottery based on region involved gets you an invitation to be a candidate. I think a minimum screening test happens next, can you pass a citizenship exam? Are you a felon? The right age bracket? Etc... Then you're a candidate. The candidates run for office based on nothing but interviews and debates. If they win, their current employer keeps paying them the same salary while they are in office. The respective government body handles expenses. After one term they go back to work, and are not eligible again to be picked for candidacy for 15 years.
But this is really far off topic.
So, Tuna55, if we can behave, are you going to let your kids read this thread?
Beer Baron said:Better yet, subject them to an actual test of how they'd deal with really being president. Burst into their hotel room at 3am with a made up crisis and see how well they're able to respond. Film it. Then show the videos halfway through the debate and have them explain themselves.
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Because the people who have required and created such tests in the past have done so for partisan, racist, and/or classist reasons in the past. They have always been crafted to disenfranchise, with some hypothetical problem held up as a smokescreen.
Maybe such a test wouldn't be inherently racist, but would tend to target people with particular geography and socio-demographic status.
Let's take a hypothetical test that is legitimately crafted to be basic civics and is administered in a completely color-blind way. Could it actually be administered in such a way that every citizen legitimately has equal opportunity to take it?
All of us on this board have a certain amount of free time. On average, people here have more money and free time than average. Almost certainly everyone here has access to their own transportation. We all have access to computers and the internet.
Now, take a random person living in a socially disadvantaged area. They work two 28-hour jobs (because Walmart and McDonalds want to keep them as part-time status) to pay rent and buy food. They take public transportation between those jobs. They have at least one child to care for. Where and how do all of the people whose situation that describes take such a test?
Many will find a way to take this test. Many won't.
Now, because fewer people in that demographic in those areas are voting, politicians pay less attention to them. Their schools, neighborhoods, and libraries get less money. Less chances for their children to grow up in any kind of a different situation.
Look, if we can't consider voting to be important enough that you can set aside a little bit of time on a specific day once every couple years, we surely aren't going to consider it important enough to make sure that people are actually qualified to have an opinion.
You'll need to log in to post.
