Is it really a right? Why should it go into the hands of the masses? If something so important as voting goes to all persons, regardless of their intelligence, etc, how can we know that we've made the best choice at the time?

Any good democratic system have some mecanisms that prevents mob rule.

[ 10-22-2005, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

We don't know we made the right choices. That's the price we pay for democracy. Hell, I can't even COUNT the number of people I look at or listen to and think, "My God, they have as much say in the next election as I do." It's a scary thought, but that's how things are.

Good topic! The practical side of me says that everyone should not be equal in this regard, but there's a niggling voice at the back of my head reminding me that a lot of people did a lot of dying for the right to vote. Also it probably was the very people we might wish to exclude that did most of the dying...

<font color = lightgreen>Yes, it is most definitely a right. Every should suffer equally. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Seriously, though...there are plenty of people I feel don't deserve the right to vote, but it isn't up to me. So there. If a mob wants their way, regardless of what that way might be, then I say let them have what they want--they'll get exactly what they deserve. </font>

But unfortunately, it means you and I get what the ignorant mob deserves.

<font color = lightgreen>Sometimes...but not always. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font>

hmm, perhaps a mandatory test to prove a basic understanding of civics and how civil society functions before being allowed to vote?

Perhaps that's too close to the Poll tax and how it was used to discriminate against other ethnic groups in the US...

I was thinking mandatory IQ tests and high school (or equivalent) diploma.

What if you don't test well? And, really, you can have a high IQ but absolutely NO COMMON SENSE.

And what if IQ is an overtly positivist psychological construct? [img]smile.gif[/img]

http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...=001632#000000
(in case you're having one of those "Wtf is he talking about?" moments)

Interesting question though, this allowing certain people to vote (non-felons, over 18). Is there any way you could limit it that wouldn't further disenfranchise the already disenfranchised? I'm thinking...not so much. The tyranny of the majority beats the tyranny of the minority. Or so they keep telling us [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 10-24-2005, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Lucern ]

You said some good thins in your post in that thread, Lucern, IQ is a bit overrated. When you look at an IQ test result you need to look at what the test actually measures and what it's relevance to reality is, if any.

There's an obvious differrence between someone who scores 50 and someone who scores 250, but most people don't fall into either of those extremes.

Imagine Bill and Bob. Bill scores 100 while Bob gets 120. Does this difference in test core between these two individuals matter in their day-to-day life? Any difference in their life is probably not due to whatever they got on the test. IQ-tests are a form of categorization where such is rarely needed.

I like that idea, extremely sensible IMO. Discrimination issues could be resolved by the local authorities running a few free classes on the subject to allow anyone to learn. I would argue that an uninformed vote is worse than no vote and actively damaging to the democratic process so if certain groups chose not to take advantage of such classes then..er...tough! An opportunity society can only create the opening, it's up to the individual to grasp it.

I gather that citizenship classes have proven extremely popular with new British citizens and see no reason why this shouldn't be extended to the entire electorate. Ideally it would lead to greater social responsibility, a increased awareness of the great institutions of our country and more intelligent public scrutiny of our leaders.

And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, nice post Lucern ;)

My understanding of most immigrants is that they're far more aware of civic issues and procedures than the average Joe on the street, because the citizenship test is rather brutal about making sure you know about the government you're earning a right to participate in, School systems have largely been much less effective at establishing the same level of working knowledge.

With these days media bombardments I find it's hard not to be an informed voter but it seems very easy to become an ill-informed voter at any given time!

I say let all who have the will to vote, do so. No other measure should matter. Either you choose to or not.

It's not universal sufferage, it's "if you want to sufferage." The really stupid people probably won't even put forth the effort anyway. No worry.

If you want to apply a test of some sort to voters, I vote we apply a test to those seeking election. [img]smile.gif[/img]

If we require passing a test for something so basic to our society as voting, should we also require one for parenthood?

Heh, well if I was running things, I most certainly would...

I'm all for universal suffering. Um... wait, wrong thread.

Law of averages, which has proven true over time. In our eternal quest to have the "good life," we have generally improved our lot over time.

Besides, stupid is as stupid does. I know lots of average intelligence people with a lot more common sense than many genuii I've met.

There's also this thing called dedication and this thing called work ethic. I love the number of actual real genius folks I know who love to beat me up in our political debates but then stare at me blankly when I ask why they aren't on a path to become a social leader, politician, or other such person who can actually *affect change.* Then I explain how, given all their aptitude, their lack of accomplishment is actually WORSE than all the supposed shortcomings of "the stupid people" who make up the dregs of society.

So, I guess my answer to the question is a question: "What merit have you that presupposes you can even ask such a question?"

"What merit have you that presupposes you can even ask such a question?"

The fact I have an essay due in a few weeks and needed a few points.

Law of averages, which has proven true over time. In our eternal quest to have the "good life," we have generally improved our lot over time.

Besides, stupid is as stupid does. I know lots of average intelligence people with a lot more common sense than many genuii I've met.

There's also this thing called dedication and this thing called work ethic. I love the number of actual real genius folks I know who love to beat me up in our political debates but then stare at me blankly when I ask why they aren't on a path to become a social leader, politician, or other such person who can actually *affect change.* Then I explain how, given all their aptitude, their lack of accomplishment is actually WORSE than all the supposed shortcomings of "the stupid people" who make up the dregs of society.

So, I guess my answer to the question is a question: "What merit have you that presupposes you can even ask such a question?" </font>[/QUOTE]Dang! Timber!- You go! :D

Well, there you have it. You'll forgive me, I'm ten years removed from having such considerations be academic.

To expound on my answer from before: in modern democracies, we aren't really, REALLY, democratic. We are representational democracies, which means we trust the general populace to elect the smart ones from their ranks, who will then go and represent the interests of their constituents in all their government-running matters. I hope my comments helped your essay, and if not, well, meh [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Chewie, thanks, I have my moments, now and again, as Blues Traveler says.