Question:
Should you have to pass an IQ test to get a voting card?
wakawaka
2010-05-14 09:51:11 UTC
Or a quiz to check if they know what their parties policies are.
To stop people just voting for the party they vote for regardless what they do or stand for, people like that exist in every corner of the spectrum.
Fifteen answers:
Beastie
2010-05-14 10:36:27 UTC
IQ test.



Right, you equate intelligence with making intelligent choices based on evidence.



File you as a non voter then.



Why?



Because some of the most intelligent people I've ever met should barely be allowed out on their own because they've got no bloody common sense. And you believe they're better qualified than others based on the fact that they're intelligent based on their IQ's. Highly intelligent people also are inclined to believe ferverently in their own viewpoint; which does not mean it is correct any more than my average intelligence viewpoint.



Intelligence is no better an indicator of sensible voting than any other indicator; and it's infinitely worse than most.
The Dark Side
2010-05-14 12:41:19 UTC
I sympathise with the idea when it is so obvious that so many people vote without any idea of what they're voting for, but not an IQ test - an IQ test only tests the ability to do IQ tests. The people who do the very best on IQ tests are the kind of nerds and geeks who form high IQ societies, which tend to be quite bizarre. So maybe a quiz on what their party's policies are would be better - I'm sure many would be surprised!



I'd rather go for something about it being taught better in school, plus, given what we've seen in the UK this week, an appreciation of how coalition politics can work and the practicalities of what has to be done if there is no overall winner in an election. BBC Question Time last night was a stunning display of ignorance by the two journalists present, with a lot of good arguments by the three politicians who actually have to work with the results of a hung Parliament. It does Lib Dem "supporters" no good at all to be in support of a party that wants proportional representation when they don't understand that the inevitable result is a hung Parliament every time, which means a coalition if you're going to have a stable government that lasts longer than next Wednesday.



As Churchill said, democracy is the worst system in the world... except for all the others.



I can't help thinking of Plato's "Republic" in this context. He proposed rule by hereditary philosopher-kings, trained from a young age to know the issues, what is best, and how to rule. Even then he had to hedge it round with all sorts of restrictions because as we all know, we're only human, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Joey100
2010-05-16 02:59:30 UTC
I don't agree with a check on knowing what party policies are - I am a politics student and I couldn't name all the party policies off by heart, so I wouldn't expect others to either.



I agree with the theory behind having to take an IQ test but in reality I don't agree with discrimination against less inteligent people so i wouldn't back that either.



However, I do think that people should look at what the parties stand for before you vote
Kit Fang
2010-05-14 10:25:29 UTC
IQ tests do not test political understanding, or anything like that. You would still have people voting purely on the basis that they always have, and without considering policies etc. even if you only let MENSA members vote. Also, it would be undemocratic, not to mention plain wrong. Make it OK to discriminate in terms of intelligence when it comes to voting, and what next? It will be seen as acceptable to treat people differently based on their intelligence, as shown by one test (which favours more analytical brains than artistic, for example).



I don't think it would be more effective in any way, sorry.
bottrell
2016-10-01 11:29:37 UTC
you could bypass or fail an IQ try in case you place a bypass or fail mark on it. the entire difficulty with democracy is that the government is in simple terms as powerful because of the fact the everybody is. XD So of course it may be extra valuable if stupid human beings could no longer vote. via increasing the intelligence of the human beings you advance the means of the government because of the fact it turns right into a peoples government. besides the undeniable fact that, rather we enable the dumb human beings vote and count number heavily on social distractions to teach human beings faraway from considerable issues like politics so the government can do a shitty job. And no, the neatest human beings interior the rustic in no way run it.
xXxFeebzxXx
2010-05-14 09:56:51 UTC
I dunno about an IQ test but they should certainly be tested to make sure they know something about politics. I think politics should be made a compulsory lesson in schools (even if it was only an hour a week).



The UK election recently is a classic example. Fair enough the Tories got in fair and square (although I voted Labour lol ^^) but I think a lot of the votes came from people who know nothing about politics and thought "oh times a bad, we need a change"



I think we should definitely be educated and tested on the different parties beliefs. I don't think it would be undemocratic at all because the only people who would complain would be the people who couldn't be bothered to learn about one of the most important aspects of the world-politics.



I'd vote that idea in anyway ^^
Cyrus M
2010-05-14 11:00:51 UTC
Having heard the reasoning behind some friend's voting techniques I am increasingly in favour of abolishing democracy altogether and just running with the good old dictatorship routine! Some people put almost 0% thought into a vote yet seem to defend their right to vote vigourously. How can that be?
Liberal
2010-05-14 12:52:08 UTC
It would never fly. If a person wants to vote along party lines or vote for whatever reason, right or wrong, that is his or her constitutional right. And no, I don't think it would be any more or any less effective.
New2Forums
2010-05-14 09:57:53 UTC
An IQ test? No. But how about this. Your vote is only worth 1/2 of a vote if you are taking a government handout like welfare, unemployment compensation (beyond the usual six months), social security or if the company you work for was bailed out.
?
2010-05-14 09:56:25 UTC
A american citizen can vote on whoever he chooses..unless otherwise prohibited through a court ruling. It's a right given to every american citizen unless otherwise prohibited.
anonymous
2010-05-14 10:01:41 UTC
See a question I posted before.



Isn’t the main flaw in our parliamentary system the voters themselves?



https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20100510134209AA5BAGx
bob
2010-05-14 10:18:10 UTC
Not democratic, not constitutional, not effective and easily abused by those in power.
Best Answer
2010-05-14 10:25:11 UTC
How about a fingerprint check?
anonymous
2010-05-14 09:53:58 UTC
No, but you should be required to be able to read the card in english.
anonymous
2010-05-14 09:55:12 UTC
dont no


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...