Mandatory intelligence test for voters?

[DontHurtTheIntersect]

Am I out of place to suggest that this be put into practice for eligible voters? I mean, elections in the United States have become nothing more than a popularity contest, akin to one you'd find in an elementary school. People can't tell you the definition of an important issue, much less their favorite politicians position on it.

Has anyone else ever thought about this?

 

[EvilLiberal]

The only problem is that we don't yet have a really effective way of estimating intelligence. We can do all the IQ tests we like, but it won't factor in all aspects of intelligence.
Mabye, if this issue was overcome, each person's vote could be given weighting proportional to their intelligence?

 

[Cadiohi]

I think public high schools should add a course in critical thinking to their required classes. In this class students would learn the basics of logic and how to recognize logical fallacies. Students should also learn about some of the tricks a human mind can play on an individual, and how to recognize propaganda.

Of course, I have a feeling some of the more religious states would throw a fit over something like this.

 

[WolfAU]

There are merits for universal voting and merits for select voting, and possibly some for some kind of hybrid (ie certain people's votes count for more than others).

The obvious problem with selective voting and therefore the main advantage of universal voting is that if the voting pool is small and similar (ie lets say people of certain wealth or academic achievement can vote) that means that these groups will be offered incentives to vote while ignoring other groups (ie when only men could vote, women were often ignored during elections). It is alot easier for politicians to bribe or bully a smaller group, and it means that certain groups may be considered 'fair game' if they cannot harm the politician politically (ie social groups, communities etc).

The other problem is 'who decides?' and 'what is a fair criteria?' for selecting voters? I can't think of a single one that would be considered fair and would recieve general acceptance.

The problem with universal voting, is general apathy of votings (ie our 'two party' system in alot of Western countries), alot of people are easily swayed by shiny things to change their vote (the Chaser's did a test to see what financial incentive was necessary for people to vote against their normal party, alot changed for ~50-100 dollars). You also have idiots, who are either so brain damaged they cannot see through clear manipulations, lies etc, or have insane political or religious ideology that the politicians must tip toe around (example scientology which I consider a cult and a dangerous blight) when it deserves nothing but contempt.

In general though if we want to improve politics, we need better candidates rather than fairer elections. The problem is... Political candidates have realised they have no real power, with big business calling the shots, that politicians are the one's who take the fall whenever something goes wrong. Those who want money or power choose instead to work in the private sector, leaving those who are either morally vacuous, or those who are attention whores, oh goodie!

Re a hybrid idea, several possibilities are you must pass a test on a topic in order to vote on it, with a focus on voting for political ideas rather than individual candidates, or certain individuals only vote in related fields (ie hospital professionals get more power in voting about medical issues over laymen). It would be radical and fiddly, but would break through some of the apathy.

In the end I feel we really need to end this 'Democracy is voting for one of two candidates every four years', aka 'America (or wherever) flips a coin' as the Simpsons put it and more focused on voting over specific bills, which if we used effective electronic voting technology, could be much cheaper than standard referendum's (the main argument I hear against it).

And I almost suspect that the electronic voting machines were intentionally vulnerable to hacking to discourage against similar idea's (ie to force us to stick with this outdated 'do it by paper' method).

"I think public high schools should add a course in critical thinking to their required classes"
Agreed, I like what George Carlin said on the topic (paraphrasing) "don't worry about teaching kids to read, if they wanna learn how to read they'll learn, its much more important to teach them HOW to think.', and I think abstract thinking, reasoning, advanced learning methods (not to mention learning social skills) should all be priorities in school over specific knowledge or skills. The only required skills should be those essential for functioning in a modern society (reading, basic maths etc).

"Of course, I have a feeling some of the more religious states would throw a fit over something like this."
One of two reasons why such things are rarely done. Religion doesn't like it when people can see through it, and two, governments don't like it when people learn to see through lies and logical falsehoods.

 

[Icefire9atla]

WolfAU, darn you beat me to it!

However, I don't think we should adopt a direct democracy, look at California where the voted themselves into debt. The problems of stupidity are only 10 times worse in a direct democracy.

 

[Cadiohi]

"Of course, I have a feeling some of the more religious states would throw a fit over something like this."
One of two reasons why such things are rarely done. Religion doesn't like it when people can see through it, and two, governments don't like it when people learn to see through lies and logical falsehoods.

In a way, I think the government should be among the first to accept a mandatory critical thinking class. Sure it means that politicians wouldn't be able to lie or manipulate their audience anymore, but it would also level the playing field for everyone. It would make the debate about the facts and evidence, and not about popularity or rampant emotionalism. In my opinion, any politician that would refuse to sign such a bill would be admitting that their position is intellectually flawed.

 

[acerba]

Having a mandatory intelligence test for voters opens up too much possibility for corruption and abuse.

 

[Homunclus]

The biggest problem isn't lack of intelligence, the biggest problem is that people don't think. Just because you are smart, and are lets say a brilliant scientist that doesn't mean you won't be swayed away by propaganda. You would be better of by testing if people knew anything about whom they are voting for.

 

[Aught3]

Remove the candidate's name and party. Instead put a short description on the ballot. Appearance, political history, and 2-3 of the campaign promises. If you recognise the person you want to vote for you get to vote for them. If you're a know-nothing voter then you vote for a random person or base it on the actual history and stances taken by the candidate.

 

[Photolysis]

Wolf's done a good job of explaining the problems with selective voting, but nevertheless, it is a fact that people's votes are not equal; for most cases, I would suggest that a vote's 'quality' is a function of both knowledge on the subject, and general intelligence. Assuming for a second we could measure these well, I think the best system would be to take votes on an issue separately and scale these appropriately, though I suppose that does beg the question about bothering with laymen in the first place if experts have so much voting power.

Democracy is a highly flawed system in my opinion, but regrettably it is the best workable system we have at the moment.

 

[SouthPaw]

Am I out of place to suggest that this be put into practice for eligible voters? I mean, elections in the United States have become nothing more than a popularity contest, akin to one you'd find in an elementary school. People can't tell you the definition of an important issue, much less their favorite politicians position on it.

Has anyone else ever thought about this?

would it not be sufficient to have that requirement for people who run for political office.

the limitation on IQ would be kind of arbitrary though.. but lets say 90 ?

 

[e2iPi]

the limitation on IQ would be kind of arbitrary though.. but lets say 90 ?

115, let's at least get on the right side of the bell curve Some of the southern states might have problems finding candidates, but that would have been a problem at your number as well.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

The biggest problem isn't lack of intelligence, the biggest problem is that people don't think. Just because you are smart, and are lets say a brilliant scientist that doesn't mean you won't be swayed away by propaganda.

This. You can be really intelligent and still have crappy taste in politicians, and virtually zero working knowledge of how the government works. Furthermore, creating an intelligence test for voters would violate the 14th amendment, in that we would not be providing equal protection of the law to all voters. That in itself is enough reason to be against the idea.

 

[WolfAU]

Re Icefire9: In the end it boils down to who you trust more... idiot plebs or currupt politicians, or which you think is easier, educating voters or getting better candidates.

Re Cadiohi: I'm not saying that this is a reason why it can't happen now, only a reason why such a thing would seem illogical to our culture (especially Australia, as we are still technically part of the English commonwealth and monarchy), as we were manipulated by individuals using blatand lies.

Besides, sadly I think many politicians will take buying votes over actually having to reason with voters any day, given that there is a view that for various psychological reasons, highly intelligent politicians don't do as well as average intelligence candidates (voters often feel they can't relate as much to them).

"any politician that would refuse to sign such a bill would be admitting that their position is intellectually flawed."
Of course not, they'd argue that such a thing is unfair and open to great abuses, and would argue that idiots are people too who deserve to be represented in elections.

One option for selective voting is the 'Starship troopers' idea that citizenship is not a gift of birth, but earned through some form(s) of service, such as military, great achievements, public service etc, and once you get citizenship you get to vote and other things (ie improved rights to property etc). Its kinda harsh and a stone's throw from some nasty form of tyranny, but I must admit to seeing some wisdom in it (if done right it would shake people out of apathy and could instill apon them that voting is a great honour/privaledge).

For those not familiar with the books/movies, its worth noting that the government in this world is not a democracy and is kinda dictatorial.

 

[Marcus]

Two of my favourite Winston Churchill quotes:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"

These seem to get to the heart of this matter. On the one hand, any restriction on who can vote will almost inevitably leed to greater iniquity. On the other, universal suffrage means decisions are made by (and thus politicians have to pander to) people who think Churchill is that dog on the insurance adverts.

A direct democracy in a large modern state would be unworkable and lead to a tyranny of the majority - for instance, in a direct democracy, Creationism would be taught in US schools and homosexuality would be illegal. However, the problem with a representative democracy is that one very good indicator that a person is not suited to hold public office is that he or she stands for election to a public office.

 

[ladiesman391]

Am I out of place to suggest that this be put into practice for eligible voters? I mean, elections in the United States have become nothing more than a popularity contest, akin to one you'd find in an elementary school. People can't tell you the definition of an important issue, much less their favorite politicians position on it.

Has anyone else ever thought about this?

I can say from personal experience that I was clearly the best man for the job of "Safety Representative" (which came with a high amount of legal resposibility and training). By law this position had to be determined by an election (we had about 50 employees) and I marginally lost the election. The guy that won had no fucking clue what to do (even after receiving more than 2 weeks training) and I was stuck basically doing his job for him, giving him advice constantly and I was told by many employees it was merely a popularity contest (the winner of the election was a very friendly, nice, happy, smiling sort of guy but dumb as shit). It's funny because they were were basically voting for "who would best protect me in my dangerous workplace" and the dumbasses voted for another dumbass to protect them even I after I had made it clear (before the vote) my knowledge about the position and it's responsibilities far exceeded anyone else's in that workplace!

So I think it's not such a bad idea to have IQ tests for voters, or a type of unbias political elimination test that determines how much the voter actually understands about politics and their vote would be eliminated if they don't pass the test, however this would also increase the possibility of election tampering...