Voting. Right?

[Jack Napier]

It would be considered insanity to permit just anyone to get in a car, and drive at high speeds, along a motorway.

It would be considered insane if just anyone were to be able to open a pub, without any sort of criterea placed on their person, whatsoever.

And you would be considered crazy if you suggested that the licence to own a shotgun be scrapped, permitting just anyone to go right into a store, and buy one.

All of these actions would, quite rightly, be considered lunacy.

And there is good reason, because these actions would have a catastrophic and perhaps fatal impact, hence WHY we have tests, laws, or criterea.

And yet, it is possible, under our present system, for a large enough % of emotionally and intellectually hollow people to shape a nation, by virtue of their vote.

It is logical that if a large enough % of the electorate are aggressive in nature, and ignorant with it, then they will inevitably vote into power leaders of aggression, and social ignorance.

It is logical that if the largest % of voters were emotionally and intellectually developed, we would end up with leaders and parties who would reflect that.

Stupid people opt for stupid decisons.

Aggressive people make emotionally aggressive decisions.

Intelligent, creative thinkers, they make intelligent and considered decisions.

I have often thought that rather than it be a 'right' for just anyone to vote, there should be some criterea attached, to at least ensure a measure of quality, a measure of them understanding that Big Brother is an Orwellian concept, and not a cheap TV programme

This would need to be fleshed out, however, voters would be tested in three primary aspects.

1) EI. Emotional intelligence. This is key.

2) IQ. An old fashioned(sic) measure of intelligence, but together with the rest, an imporant component.

3) A test to ensure that they have some understanding of domestic and global politics (it's not too much to ask that people voting for something, should be required to know something about it, right?).

Naturally, no one would be denied the vote based on gender, colour, status, or age, indeed, it is not so much about denying anyone the vote, but if this did indeed lead to less soundbite politics, less rhetoric, and a more intelligent, thinking, visionary leadership, I cannot fairly say that it would be a bad thing.

Thanks for reading,

JN

[5K3PT1C]

Sorry mate - I see your point but this smacks of intellectual elitism. Who gets to set the bar in these tests? Will my IQ have to be over 90, over 100 or over 150? Are these standards to be enshrined in electoral law? Can whoever is in power at the time decide to raise or lower the bar on a whim? Do I qualify for using the phrase "intellectual elitism" or am I disqualified for disagreeing with you? I see your point, I really do. I get frustrated by the fact that people who are clearly idiots can have a say in anything that directly affects me but that's just part of living in a free and open society mate. I'm sure we all prefer that to a dictatorship.

[Jack Napier]

Sorry mate - I see your point but this smacks of intellectual elitism. Who gets to set the bar in these tests? Will my IQ have to be over 90, over 100 or over 150? Are these standards to be enshrined in electoral law? Can whoever is in power at the time decide to raise or lower the bar on a whim? Do I qualify for using the phrase "intellectual elitism" or am I disqualified for disagreeing with you? I see your point, I really do. I get frustrated by the fact that people who are clearly idiots can have a say in anything that directly affects me but that's just part of living in a free and open society mate. I'm sure we all prefer that to a dictatorship.

Hi, and thanks for reading my opening statement.

Your concerns are normal, I have proposed this system before, to friends, and initially, they will raise smiliar concerns.

However, what I have found is that as the conversation evolved, they came to see it as(first) non threatening (and then) very possibly something beneficial, to all.

It is also important to make clear that this isn't about creating an elite of voters, from the best private schools, not at all. Academic intelligence is no measure of common sense or genius. While commendable, academic intelligence could be argued as having a very good memory for digesting information, then remembering it, when given an exam.

I have met people in what would be considered non glam jobs, who left school at fifteen, with no qualifications, who are more erudite, in touch with society, more creative, and visionary, than many who have been able to attend private school.

It also should be remembered that this is a dynamic system, not static.

Here is a brief example of a static system;

Women cannot vote.

This system is static, and unfair, because a women could not do anything to alter her status, therefore qualifying her to vote.

It would be biased and ethically wrong.

However, the suggested system is flexible, if an individual didn't meet the criterea, then like the driving student who has failed his test, he can go away, work on the areas that he or she is weak on, then return to take their test, once more.

The same would be true of this.

If someone did not meet the criterea first time, then they too could go off, work on the areas that they were weak on, and try again.

The real question is this.

If this had even a 10% chance of (over time), creating a better, more altruistic, fairer society, which would return to office people who would not make anti intelligent decisions, such as sending working class men to be killed in illegal and immoral wars, one which would see the logic in having a healthy nation, irrespective of financial status, one which saw the obvious benefit of creating an educated society, no matter the financial staus, if that were on offer, rather than the mess that we call a 'democracy' (which isn't v democratic), would it be worth it?

Logically, it would, wouldn't it?

If we could see past the 'stigma' that it may appear to have, initially.

Thanks

[DC]

The book Starship Troopers propositioned a similar idea. It effectively summarised your position by asking the question; 'who has more right to vote, a 32 year old moron who'll waste it, or a 16 year old who knows what he's doing and will use it wisely?' The answer is of course, thanks to most electoral systems, the 32 year old moron.

The book's position on criteria however, was a bit different. There was no test of intelligence, rather to have the franchise, you had to be a citizen, and to be a citizen, you had to serve a term in the military. The fundamental idea being that those voting and making decisions about their country should also care enough about it to protect it with their lives.

Personally I share your frustration where morons can both elect and be elected. In Australia something like 2 million people (10% of our population) voted for the Greens. Now nothing against the enviromental left, but the Australian Greens are a very strange, and ultimately ineffectual party. They will now hold the balance of power in the senate. However I am somewhat hesitant about your system, as it seems that a working class man, with little education, but a stable blue collar job, would be disenfranchised by your system. Both the IQ and the test on politics really do require at least a high school education to score well. And while this man may be very passionate about what he believes in, doesn't give in to the rhetoric and such, he won't be able to vote. We can presume that a large proportion of the population will be in this position, and they are probably lower class, which could lead to political instability.

[Midas]

It would be considered insanity to permit just anyone to get in a car, and drive at high speeds, along a motorway.

It would be considered insane if just anyone were to be able to open a pub, without any sort of criterea placed on their person, whatsoever.

And you would be considered crazy if you suggested that the licence to own a shotgun be scrapped, permitting just anyone to go right into a store, and buy one.

All of these actions would, quite rightly, be considered lunacy.

And there is good reason, because these actions would have a catastrophic and perhaps fatal impact, hence WHY we have tests, laws, or criterea.

And yet, it is possible, under our present system, for a large enough % of emotionally and intellectually hollow people to shape a nation, by virtue of their vote.

It is logical that if a large enough % of the electorate are aggressive in nature, and ignorant with it, then they will inevitably vote into power leaders of aggression, and social ignorance.

It is logical that if the largest % of voters were emotionally and intellectually developed, we would end up with leaders and parties who would reflect that.

Stupid people opt for stupid decisons.

Aggressive people make emotionally aggressive decisions.

Intelligent, creative thinkers, they make intelligent and considered decisions.

I have often thought that rather than it be a 'right' for just anyone to vote, there should be some criterea attached, to at least ensure a measure of quality, a measure of them understanding that Big Brother is an Orwellian concept, and not a cheap TV programme

This would need to be fleshed out, however, voters would be tested in three primary aspects.

1) EI. Emotional intelligence. This is key.

2) IQ. An old fashioned(sic) measure of intelligence, but together with the rest, an imporant component.

3) A test to ensure that they have some understanding of domestic and global politics (it's not too much to ask that people voting for something, should be required to know something about it, right?).

Naturally, no one would be denied the vote based on gender, colour, status, or age, indeed, it is not so much about denying anyone the vote, but if this did indeed lead to less soundbite politics, less rhetoric, and a more intelligent, thinking, visionary leadership, I cannot fairly say that it would be a bad thing.

Thanks for reading,

JN

Hi Jack, and welcome to the Politics Forum!

To start with you might like to read the extended "Welcome" message in the Rules and Guidelines section of the forum, which also includes a full version of the Forum Rules.

Knowing what’s appropriate to say and post and what isn’t can save everyone a great deal of hassle, and as such you might also find the Guide to Good Posting useful. If you’re unfamiliar with the type of forum software we use here, a brief guide to using it can be found here. Please respect other people’s views here; they mightn’t be the same as yours, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong, just that they're different.

If you need help with anything at all to do with the forum, feel free to contact me, or one of the other moderators, via a personal message; our details can be found here, listed as "Minister" and “Junior Minister”.

Perhaps you’d care to formally introduce yourself, which you can do here, or optionally tell us a little bit more about yourself here.

Enjoy the debates here - as for this one, I'll no doubt be adding my own contribution in reply in due course, but I can't help feeling that you're at least part right!

[Jack Napier]

Personally I share your frustration where morons can both elect and be elected. In Australia something like 2 million people (10% of our population) voted for the Greens. Now nothing against the enviromental left, but the Australian Greens are a very strange, and ultimately ineffectual party. They will now hold the balance of power in the senate. However I am somewhat hesitant about your system, as it seems that a working class man, with little education, but a stable blue collar job, would be disenfranchised by your system. Both the IQ and the test on politics really do require at least a high school education to score well. And while this man may be very passionate about what he believes in, doesn't give in to the rhetoric and such, he won't be able to vote. We can presume that a large proportion of the population will be in this position, and they are probably lower class, which could lead to political instability.

Hello, and thanks for your considered thoughts.

I welcome your slight hesitance re my proposal. Before embracing anything new, be it this, or be it a new relationship in your personal life, all should be questioned, challenged and examined. You will tend to find that this process happens all too little, which is part of the reason why mainstream political parties can easily manipulate the masses. They (the parties), throw out a bunch of vacuous 'ideas', knowing that the average voter, being of short attention span, will suck them up, and endorse them, even if the ideas that they are supporting will, when they play out, actually work against them! There are many examples of this.

If people applied more critical thinking, challenged everything, and questioned all, we would, I am sure, have less illogical decisions happening than we do, today.

It is illogical, for example, to bankrupt our economy engaging in illegal occupations, while, at the same time, claiming that there needs to be cuts in public spennding.

It is entirely illogical for the taxpayer, here in the UK, to see some £15million of our money being spent to finance a visit from the head of the Catholic church, while claiming that we need to cut spending to crucial services (77% of people polled agreed with this, yet our voices are ignored anyway, and the Government will spend our money, as they see fit). It is illogical for the United States to give ONE THIRD of it's aid budget to Israel (but that is another thread, for another day).

It is imporant not to place too much emphasis on the IQ part of this, the measure of Emotional Intelligence, in which we would be looking for traits such as empathy and altruism, they would be just as, if not more imporant, as would having a basic grasp on political affairs, both domestic and global.

However, staying IQ for now, and indeed the test on politics, I can assure you, it is not true to say that you would need a high level of conventional education.

I am living proof of this. Due to family circumstances, I had to leave school at fifteen. I then went on to work in some of the most uninspiring jobs you can imagine. And yet, when my IQ was last tested, it was high, I have been told that I am very emotionally aware, and my grasp of politics is often much better than those who came from a more 'fortunate' background/start in life. I am quite certain that there are others, just like me, across the nation. There is nothing special about how I became who I am today. I educated myself. At my poorest, I would go onto websites, or scour charity shops, seeking to buy books that would help me learn about the poltical environment in which we live. Anyone can do this. Emotionally, I developed, simply by (informally) 'studying' the psyche of the many people who have passed through my life. So, we can see here that with effort, anyone can become politically aware, and anyone can become emotionally aware. It requires only two things - the passion to do so, and, of course, the effort.

I should also point out that to enter into politics, one would also have to pass these tests. I wonder if (for example), George W Bush would ever have become President of the US had he been requird to do so? The question is rhetorical.

JN

[Jack Napier]

Hi Jack, and welcome to the Politics Forum!

To start with you might like to read the extended "Welcome" message in the Rules and Guidelines section of the forum, which also includes a full version of the Forum Rules.

Knowing what’s appropriate to say and post and what isn’t can save everyone a great deal of hassle, and as such you might also find the Guide to Good Posting useful. If you’re unfamiliar with the type of forum software we use here, a brief guide to using it can be found here. Please respect other people’s views here; they mightn’t be the same as yours, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong, just that they're different.

If you need help with anything at all to do with the forum, feel free to contact me, or one of the other moderators, via a personal message; our details can be found here, listed as "Minister" and “Junior Minister”.

Perhaps you’d care to formally introduce yourself, which you can do here, or optionally tell us a little bit more about yourself here.

Enjoy the debates here - as for this one, I'll no doubt be adding my own contribution in reply in due course, but I can't help feeling that you're at least part right!

Thank you for welcome, sir, and thank you for having me on.

I will return to the sections that you have highlighted, a little later, and post a little about me, in the appropriate section.

Please be assured of my good conduct, at all times. I have strong views, however, I always avoid crass ad hom attacks, as they never add anything to a discussion, save for revealing the stupidity of the person making such an attack.

I hope you had a nice weekend.

JN

[Midas]

The book Starship Troopers propositioned a similar idea. It effectively summarised your position by asking the question; 'who has more right to vote, a 32 year old moron who'll waste it, or a 16 year old who knows what he's doing and will use it wisely?' The answer is of course, thanks to most electoral systems, the 32 year old moron.

The book's position on criteria however, was a bit different. There was no test of intelligence, rather to have the franchise, you had to be a citizen, and to be a citizen, you had to serve a term in the military. The fundamental idea being that those voting and making decisions about their country should also care enough about it to protect it with their lives.

Personally I share your frustration where morons can both elect and be elected. In Australia something like 2 million people (10% of our population) voted for the Greens. Now nothing against the enviromental left, but the Australian Greens are a very strange, and ultimately ineffectual party. They will now hold the balance of power in the senate. However I am somewhat hesitant about your system, as it seems that a working class man, with little education, but a stable blue collar job, would be disenfranchised by your system. Both the IQ and the test on politics really do require at least a high school education to score well. And while this man may be very passionate about what he believes in, doesn't give in to the rhetoric and such, he won't be able to vote. We can presume that a large proportion of the population will be in this position, and they are probably lower class, which could lead to political instability.

I also share Jack's frustration at the existing system, both on the points he and you raise, but also about the voting system used in this country (and in Australia, holding dual citizenship I have to vote there too) which just is not representative of the views of the public, but that's another debate.

What I would take issue with though is that any form of testing to determine whether any individual votes or not would disenfranchise large numbers of blue collar job people. I've been a member of Mensa for around 30 years and during part of that time have held a number of voluntary positions which have both brought me into contact with many members and enabled me to see the job categories of many thousands of others. Now I can't give you any figures, but there doesn't appear to be any particular pattern as regards a correlation between employment and intelligence; there's not even as great a degree of correlation between education and intelligence as many seem to think. I've also noticed this over the years in business, with many shop floor workers being as erudite on a wide range of topics as my board and senior management colleagues - where you end up in life is as often as not determined by personal drive and ambition as by intelligence and/or ability. Sure, a good education does help, but it's not the be all and end all.

Jack's original point about emotional intelligence is very true, and it does play a far greater role in the overall 'roundedness' of people than was once thought, so in theory at least it should be a good basis for determining whether any given individual should have the right to vote or not. The problem as I see it is twofold. Firstly how do you test the entire adult population - there are a number of excellent standardised EI tests available - but do you force the whole population to take one (and at whose cost) in order to even get on the voting ladder? Secondly I have concerns that this alone would produce a new them and us divide, with many of the far less intelligent (EI and IQ) people feeling disenfranchised and reacting to what they see as being classed as second rate citizens.

To start with, at least until an answer is found on the best way to determine voting rights - much of which is surely down to better all round education, but again that's another debate - the introduction of true proportional representation is to my mind by far the best way to go. At least that would give us an accurate reflection of people's political views, although how reasoned many of those views are is a very different matter!

[Jack Napier]

Jack's original point about emotional intelligence is very true, and it does play a far greater role in the overall 'roundedness' of people than was once thought, so in theory at least it should be a good basis for determining whether any given individual should have the right to vote or not. The problem as I see it is twofold. Firstly how do you test the entire adult population - there are a number of excellent standardised EI tests available - but do you force the whole population to take one (and at whose cost) in order to even get on the voting ladder?

Thank you for the well written response, I very much enjoyed reading it.

It is good, and very encouraging for me (on here), that members are taking the time to consider and contemplate new ideas, rather than just dismiss them on the basis that they are new ideas! Oh how our species do not like change. Usually, when a change (even when it is for the good) is proposed, people will laugh at it, ridicule it. The next step, when they see it gathering support, is to violently oppose it. The third, and often final step, is that they finally accept it, and it becomes 'orthodox'.

Firstly, no one would be 'forced', as such. At least, not any more than someone who wanted to take a car out into the road would be 'forced' to pass their driving test. If you refused to take the test, then yes, it would disqualify you, just as refusing to sit a formal driving test would disqualify you.

As to the financing, well, there are many ways it could be financed, we can explore these further, if you wish.

However, it would be an investement rather than a spend.

Sometimes, when looking at something which would improve society, it is more a question of asking 'Can we afford NOT to', rather than 'Can we afford to'.

JN

Meantime, I thought I would throw this into the mixer..

[JacquesMagique]

I share some of your concerns with democracy. The amount of ignorance, apathy and prejudice which a lot of voters hold on a lot of issues is often quite startling. And yet I have to strongly disagree with you. The right to vote is not the same thing as a driving license. It is a right, not a privilege. Everyone should have a say in determining their own future, not simply the enlightened few.

Even ignoring the ethical problems of your proposal, the potential consequences of this idea are really quite troubling. As midas suggests, disenfranchisement of people purely on the grounds of their level of intelligence would create a major political cleavage and 'them and us' attitude, I would further add that the likely result would also be a negative bias against this new non-voter class, whose votes wouldn't matter at all. Politicians are out of touch with the man in the street enough as it is, reducing the size and range of the electorate would exacerbate this problem.

Furthermore, you like to talk about logic a lot in your post, as though logic provides all the answers for everything, but the logical implications of your argument itself are troubling (bear with me, as this next point is a bit muddled). As there is no specific cut-off point determinable for those who ought to be allowed to vote and those who oughtn't, you would simply be quantifying individuals ability to make political decisions, and then effectively ranking them on this basis. The implication of this is that there will be one voter who is ultimately the best equipped to lead, therefore allowing anyone ranked below him to vote would make the overall decision making process less effective as they are simply muddying the waters of the electorate. You presumably consider yourself part of this class who ought to be allowed the vote, but there will always be those with a better understanding, who would according to your theory have more of a right to vote, and therefore a right to disenfranchise you, and everybody else below them. I guess that the point of this section of my post is that it would be impossible to determine a reasonable cut off point, as there will always be a variety of different intelligence levels, unless you have an electorate of one.

By all means we should encourage people to engage more with the political sphere and we should improve the level of education about politics delivered in school etc. However, disqualifying people from voting is both ethically dubious and very unworkable.

[Jack Napier]

I share some of your concerns with democracy. The amount of ignorance, apathy and prejudice which a lot of voters hold on a lot of issues is often quite startling. And yet I have to strongly disagree with you. The right to vote is not the same thing as a driving license. It is a right, not a privilege. Everyone should have a say in determining their own future, not simply the enlightened few.

You are right. Handing a vote to just anyone, irrespective of a total absence of politcal knowledge, emotional stablity, and basic common sense, is not at all like just letting anyone drive, or buy a shotgun - it is much much worse. If we scrapped the driving licence, permitting anyone to drive, the numbers of deaths on our roads would, I am sure, go up. If we scrapped a shotgun licence, then the number of shootings would, I am sure, go up. But all of this pales into insignificance when you compare it to handing a ignorant and quite often sociopathic mass to vote. There have been many examples of the horrors that this brings. Adolf Hilter didn't take power by force, you know. On the contrary, his party were voted in, by 'ordinary' Germans. They loved him, saw him as a hero, and yet, as history shows us, the outcome was awful. I use this extreme example to illustrate the fact that an electorate with a certain mindset will and can vote in to power someone who will feed of their primal fears.

We don't live in a Democracy, btw. If we did, the Conservatives would not be in power, and they most definitely have no power over our lives, here in Scotland, and yet, they do. I am not sure what I would call the system we presently have (morally bankrupt, ethically unsound, an idiocracy), but I most surely would not call it a democracy, in the manner that most people believe a democracy to be.

Even ignoring the ethical problems of your proposal, the potential consequences of this idea are really quite troubling. As midas suggests, disenfranchisement of people purely on the grounds of their level of intelligence would create a major political cleavage and 'them and us' attitude, I would further add that the likely result would also be a negative bias against this new non-voter class, whose votes wouldn't matter at all. Politicians are out of touch with the man in the street enough as it is, reducing the size and range of the electorate would exacerbate this problem.

No offence (tone does not carry well in written form), but this 'disenfranchisment' has been mentioned almost as if it is not something that exists, right here and right now. Let me tell you, it most definitely does. You have no real power, at all, nor do I. The 'owners' are not interested in us, on a day to day basis, only when it is election time, and they patronise us with false promises, and rhetoric. The majority of us are 'disenfranchised', without even seeing it. Yes, you may be able to go to a voting booth, once every few years, and place your X against a candidate, but that is just something that is given to you, as a mother would give a crying baby a pacifier. Which of our parties are against the on going conflict in Afghani? The answer is none - yet in a recent poll, some 77% of people felt that this was an illegal occupation, and want the troops brought home, now. Why are they not being brought home, then, after all, we have this 'democracy'? Who speaks out on behalf of the unemployed, single mothers, people with mental health problems, and so on, and so on? The answer is, not ONE of our mainstream parties does this, because, while they can all vote, beyond that, those people are not important to them. They are the obviously disenfranchised. The rest of us, we are the less obvious (but still) disenfranchised.

Furthermore, you like to talk about logic a lot in your post, as though logic provides all the answers for everything.

I didn't suggest a system, or indeed a person of logical thought would have ALL of the answers. Logical, rational people, will make logical and rational decisions. Illogical and irrational people will make illogical and irrational decisions. The vast majority of US people still believe in a magic man in the sky, who reads their every thought. If one person proposed this notion, we would deem them insane. Because tens of millions don't think, but merely suck this nonsense up, it is 'orthodox', and demands to be 'respected'. Is it any wonder that the US is such an aggressive and war like nation, when it's people base their lives on what is tantamount to a form of collective delusion?

but the logical implications of your argument itself are troubling (bear with me, as this next point is a bit muddled). As there is no specific cut-off point determinable for those who ought to be allowed to vote and those who oughtn't, you would simply be quantifying individuals ability to make political decisions, and then effectively ranking them on this basis. The implication of this is that there will be one voter who is ultimately the best equipped to lead, therefore allowing anyone ranked below him to vote would make the overall decision making process less effective as they are simply muddying the waters of the electorate. You presumably consider yourself part of this class who ought to be allowed the vote, but there will always be those with a better understanding, who would according to your theory have more of a right to vote, and therefore a right to disenfranchise you, and everybody else below them. I guess that the point of this section of my post is that it would be impossible to determine a reasonable cut off point, as there will always be a variety of different intelligence levels, unless you have an electorate of one.

You are over complicating it. All I am suggesting, is that being able to cast a vote is a very important decision, and, because of that, it might be best that the voters had some level of political understanding, and be able to demostrate some level of positive emotional qualities, such as benevolence and fraternity. That is all. Just a reasonable level. Furthermore, as I mentioned, people can change, they can develop themselves to be more compassionate, to be more politically aware.

By all means we should encourage people to engage more with the political sphere and we should improve the level of education about politics delivered in school etc. However, disqualifying people from voting is both ethically dubious and very unworkable.

The problem is that the mass are not generally very interested in learning. They are mentally lazy, and would prefer, as we can see by viewing figures on television, to watch the X Factor or discuss the Davina McColl's new dress, than watch a programme about politics, science, or nature.

[JacquesMagique]

Please sort out the quote marks by putting [ quote ] before and [ /quote ] after (without the spaces) each piece of text, it makes replying a lot more difficult otherwise.

You are right. Handing a vote to just anyone, irrespective of a total absence of politcal knowledge, emotional stablity, and basic common sense, is not at all like just letting anyone drive, or buy a shotgun - it is much much worse. If we scrapped the driving licence, permitting anyone to drive, the numbers of deaths on our roads would, I am sure, go up. If we scrapped a shotgun licence, then the number of shootings would, I am sure, go up. But all of this pales into insignificance when you compare it to handing a ignorant and quite often sociopathic mass to vote. There have been many examples of the horrors that this brings. Adolf Hilter didn't take power by force, you know. On the contrary, his party were voted in, by 'ordinary' Germans. They loved him, saw him as a hero, and yet, as history shows us, the outcome was awful. I use this extreme example to illustrate the fact that an electorate with a certain mindset will and can vote in to power someone who will feed of their primal fears.

Oh I didn't know that, thank you for relieving me of my ignorance. Oh wait, yeah I did . It wasn't simply the "baying masses" who you look down upon so much that bought Hitler's spiel you know, he had plenty of support from the middle class and academic elites.
You're right in saying that your example is extreme, especially when you look at hundreds of other countries the world over who have never elected any extreme parties to major office. You are simply scaremongering by using one isolated example. Even if we accept your argument about this kind of eventuality, all this demonstrates to me is a need to place constitutional controls on the power of elected officials, to prevent this from happening. There is not one class of people who would reject extremists and one class who would support them. Even if there was, it would be well within their rights to do so.

We don't live in a Democracy, btw. If we did, the Conservatives would not be in power, and they most definitely have no power over our lives, here in Scotland, and yet, they do. I am not sure what I would call the system we presently have (morally bankrupt, ethically unsound, an idiocracy), but I most surely would not call it a democracy, in the manner that most people believe a democracy to be.

Ok so is it fair when Labour are in government of England because of their seats in Scotland? I'm not a Tory and I generally stand up for the Scots when right wing English people are on the attack. However, if Scotland wants to remain part of the union, which judging by the lack of support for the SNP most of them do, then they should accept the result of a UK wide election. Furthermore this isn't really relevant to the matter at hand, because disenfranchising less intelligent people wouldn't solve this problem anyway.

No offence (tone does not carry well in written form), but this 'disenfranchisment' has been mentioned almost as if it is not something that exists, right here and right now. Let me tell you, it most definitely does. You have no real power, at all, nor do I. The 'owners' are not interested in us, on a day to day basis, only when it is election time, and they patronise us with false promises, and rhetoric. The majority of us are 'disenfranchised', without even seeing it. Yes, you may be able to go to a voting booth, once every few years, and place your X against a candidate, but that is just something that is given to you, as a mother would give a crying baby a pacifier. Which of our parties are against the on going conflict in Afghani? The answer is none - yet in a recent poll, some 77% of people felt that this was an illegal occupation, and want the troops brought home, now. Why are they not being brought home, then, after all, we have this 'democracy'? Who speaks out on behalf of the unemployed, single mothers, people with mental health problems, and so on, and so on? The answer is, not ONE of our mainstream parties does this, because, while they can all vote, beyond that, those people are not important to them. They are the obviously disenfranchised. The rest of us, we are the less obvious (but still) disenfranchised.

All reasonable criticisms of the current system, none of which would be solved by your proposals.

I didn't suggest a system, or indeed a person of logical thought would have ALL of the answers. Logical, rational people, will make logical and rational decisions. Illogical and irrational people will make illogical and irrational decisions.

But that's just it, it doesn't work like that. You can't simply but people into two categories, "logical and rational" and "illogical and irrational". Everyone makes some irrational decisions. There is no cut off point. There is not two castes of people, one caste capable of making decisions, the other caste not capable.

You are over complicating it. All I am suggesting, is that being able to cast a vote is a very important decision, and, because of that, it might be best that the voters had some level of political understanding, and be able to demostrate some level of positive emotional qualities, such as benevolence and fraternity. That is all. Just a reasonable level. Furthermore, as I mentioned, people can change, they can develop themselves to be more compassionate, to be more politically aware.

What is reasonable? Who decides that? there is no reasonable or logical cut-off point, except when you have reached the most qualified voter.

So now we have to be benevolent and fraternal as well? Because those are standards which YOU deem to be necessary? You have no right to dictate the level at which people should be allowed to hold the key to their own future.

The problem is that the mass are not generally very interested in learning. They are mentally lazy, and would prefer, as we can see by viewing figures on television, to watch the X Factor or discuss the Davina McColl's new dress, than watch a programme about politics, science, or nature.

Yeah apathy is a problem, but denying people the vote because of their intelligence is hardly likely to solve this is it. Furthermore I find this attitude really quite disgustingly patronising.

[Midas]

I share some of your concerns with democracy. The amount of ignorance, apathy and prejudice which a lot of voters hold on a lot of issues is often quite startling. And yet I have to strongly disagree with you. The right to vote is not the same thing as a driving license. It is a right, not a privilege. Everyone should have a say in determining their own future, not simply the enlightened few.

NO!! People should have to earn 'rights', not take them as given! In this case Jack is quite correct, people should have to demonstrate a decent level of understanding of the social and political issues in the country before they are allowed to vote and determine the course of action on those issues. In virtually every walk of life people have to prove themselves worthy of being allowed to perform certain actions and they think nothing of it; why not in voting?

Even ignoring the ethical problems of your proposal, the potential consequences of this idea are really quite troubling. As midas suggests, disenfranchisement of people purely on the grounds of their level of intelligence would create a major political cleavage and 'them and us' attitude, I would further add that the likely result would also be a negative bias against this new non-voter class, whose votes wouldn't matter at all. Politicians are out of touch with the man in the street enough as it is, reducing the size and range of the electorate would exacerbate this problem.

My objections are based purely on practical grounds though Jacques; that doesn't mean I don't think the idea is sound in principle. Given time and a better level of education all round I think it's a concept whose time will come.

[ ... ]

By all means we should encourage people to engage more with the political sphere and we should improve the level of education about politics delivered in school etc. However, disqualifying people from voting is both ethically dubious and very unworkable.

Unworkable, at the moment yes, but regrettably so; ethically dubious, no, I have no worries on that count.

[JacquesMagique]

NO!! People should have to earn 'rights', not take them as given! In this case Jack is quite correct, people should have to demonstrate a decent level of understanding of the social and political issues in the country before they are allowed to vote and determine the course of action on those issues. In virtually every walk of life people have to prove themselves worthy of being allowed to perform certain actions and they think nothing of it; why not in voting?

Because voting allows you to exert authority over others without any form of contract. Without their consent this is completely illegitimate unless everybody has a stake of the power.
And who has the authority to determine what is a reasonable level of understanding?

[Jack Napier]

NO!! People should have to earn 'rights', not take them as given! In this case Jack is quite correct, people should have to demonstrate a decent level of understanding of the social and political issues in the country before they are allowed to vote and determine the course of action on those issues. In virtually every walk of life people have to prove themselves worthy of being allowed to perform certain actions and they think nothing of it; why not in voting?
My objections are based purely on practical grounds though Jacques; that doesn't mean I don't think the idea is sound in principle. Given time and a better level of education all round I think it's a concept whose time will come.

Precisely, and I am glad you understand the premise of the system.

This is not about creating a totalitarian leadership, I would be the first to object to that.

It is about letting those, best equipped to make decisions, for the common good, make those decisions.

If I needed legal representation, I would turn to a lawyer, because, through a series of 'tests', he has proven himself to be competant in that field, one would hope.

I would be insane to turn to a plumber to represent me in court (although I technically could), but it would be insane, legal suicide, since the plumber is not qualified to do the job that the lawyer can do.

JN

[Jack Napier]

And who has the authority to determine what is a reasonable level of understanding?

Who has the 'authority' to determine whether or not someone suffers from schizophrenia (a person best qualifed to do so).

Who has the 'authority' to determine if a student should get an A or a D, in an exam (a person best qualified to do so).

I could make a list of 100 examples of this type, and yet, for some reason, I get the feeling that at the end of them all, you would go on saying the same thing.

I am sure you are a good person, in non cyber life, as am I, but if you had been around 100 yrs ago, and I had proposed a mode of electronic communcation, you would be have been opposed to it. We are using that system, right now, as I type.

[JacquesMagique]

Precisely, and I am glad you understand the premise of the system.

This is not about creating a totalitarian leadership, I would be the first to object to that.

It is about letting those, best equipped to make decisions, for the common good, make those decisions.

If I needed legal representation, I would turn to a lawyer, because, through a series of 'tests', he has proven himself to be competant in that field, one would hope.

I would be insane to turn to a plumber to represent me in court (although I technically could), but it would be insane, legal suicide, since the plumber is not qualified to do the job that the lawyer can do.

JN

This is the same argument that Plato uses. It's thousands of years out of date.

[JacquesMagique]

I am sure you are a good person, in non cyber life, as am I, but if you had been around 100 yrs ago, and I had proposed a mode of electronic communcation, you would be have been opposed to it. We are using that system, right now, as I type.

Well no now you are speculating wildly about my personal beliefs. I'm not criticising your idea because it's new (it isn't). I'm criticising it because it's crap.

[Jack Napier]

Oh I didn't know that, thank you for relieving me of my ignorance. Oh wait, yeah I did . It wasn't simply the "baying masses" who you look down upon so much that bought Hitler's spiel you know, he had plenty of support from the middle class and academic elites.
You're right in saying that your example is extreme, especially when you look at hundreds of other countries the world over who have never elected any extreme parties to major office. You are simply scaremongering by using one isolated example. Even if we accept your argument about this kind of eventuality, all this demonstrates to me is a need to place constitutional controls on the power of elected officials, to prevent this from happening. There is not one class of people who would reject extremists and one class who would support them.

You seem stuck on the academic and class thing. For the last time, this is not about academic elite, or class elite, it is about ensuring that voters earn their right to shape a nation which may impact on MY life, by having the first clue what they are talking about. Do you understand this difference? Okay, not happy with my Hitler example. Let's move forward it time, then. George W Bush. Hope that is nice and recent, for you. Perhaps one of the most thick men ever to be in the White House, yet entirely reflecting of the pseudo Christian, parochial, insular, 'we are better than anyone in the world mentality' of the electorate (okay, he had to fiddle his second term, but the point still stands). The results of that man getting into office were a DISASTER for the American people, and the nation. It has put them in more danger, not less. It has created more unrest in the Middle East, not less. As for a 'class of people not rejecting extremism', I think you are wrong. This would be a better way to put it. You are familiar, I assume, with the Stanford Prison experiment, yes? The biggest % of people showed themselves to be easily manipulated into inflicting harm onto others, the smallest % thought for themselves, and resisted it, so, yes, I DO think there are people who would reject jingoism, faux patriotism, et all, and those people are THINKERS.

[Jack Napier]

Well no now you are speculating wildly about my personal beliefs. I'm not criticising your idea because it's new (it isn't). I'm criticising it because it's crap.

Well, seem that you and I have nothing more to discuss on the matter then, since your considered summary is that it is 'crap'.

Very insightful.

Since you believe it to be so, do you mind if I continue the discussion with others who are interested in it?

Thanks

JN

[Jack Napier]

This is the same argument that Plato uses. It's thousands of years out of date.

Well, next time you need the services of a lawyer, use a plumber, because if you don't, you will be engaging in an 'out of date' thought process, and, futhermore, you will be denying the plumber his 'right' to show how clever he is at law!

[Midas]

Because voting allows you to exert authority over others without any form of contract. Without their consent this is completely illegitimate unless everybody has a stake of the power.
And who has the authority to determine what is a reasonable level of understanding?

Any such change would have to be sanctioned by whatever government was in power at the time, and if passed it would automatically become legitimised.

As I've pointed out generally and Jack has pointed out with some specifics, throughout life there's a plethora of examples where people have to be qualified to undertake certain tasks; why should the setting of a given level of understanding of political and social affairs before being allowed to vote be any different? After all, if you take the subject at any school, college or university you have to pass exams to demonstrate that "reasonable level of understanding" don't you - why should this be any different except in depth?

[Jack Napier]

That's right, Midas, however, at the risk of going around in circles with this (which makes one dizzy ), I want now to introduce some new thoughts into the mix.

I would like to use the US as my model here, simply because

A) It has a large population, in excess of 300million, I believe

and...

B) It champions itself (laughingly, some may say), as the Father of all Democracies(sic).

Now, in the US, there are only two parties that will ever, as things stand, get into power, those being the Democrats and the GOP.

I am not saying that these are the only two parties that exist, but they are the only two parties who would win an election, not due to the fact that they have the most brilliant ideas, the most inspiring of leaders, or anything positive like that, but merely because they are the 'establishment'.

It would be next to impossible for a new party to emerge and challenge them, because, in order to do so, it would take funding of MASSIVE proportions.

I find it absurd that a nation like the US, with it's vast population, and all the cultural and social differences that exist within that population only really have two parties to 'choose' from, esp as the differences between the two have become increasingly superficial (the same thing happened here, when the Tories and New Labour became almost like one party, pretending to be different).

A nation like the US should have at least ten parties, spanning the entire poltical spectrum, all with vastly different ideals, so that the electorate were given real choice. So that the emerging parties had a fair chance of promoting their ideas to the masses, I would further propose that all these parties be afforded equal exposure in the media, and an equal budget to work with. To me, that would be more of a democracy than what they presently have.

The same is true, in the UK.

Once more, we have two parties who, under the present system, will only ever win an election - Labour and the Tories. That's not true choice, it's like a choice between a s**t sandwich and pi** soup!

Again, in the UK, to achieve genuine choice for the electorate, we should perhaps have six parties, all very different, all afforded the same fixed budget, and media exposure.

JN.

[Midas]

That's right, Midas, however, at the risk of going around in circles with this (which makes one dizzy ), I want now to introduce some new thoughts into the mix.

[ ... ]

The same is true, in the UK.

Once more, we have two parties who, under the present system, will only ever win an election - Labour and the Tories. That's not true choice, it's like a choice between a s**t sandwich and pi** soup!

Again, in the UK, to achieve genuine choice for the electorate, we should perhaps have six parties, all very different, all afforded the same fixed budget, and media exposure.

Yes, and perhaps no; it all depends on how those parties are elected and how the whole system of government is structured - sorry for the big snip of your post by the way!

At the moment with our first past the post electoral system and the adversarial nature of parliament, we are indeed condemned to having two, maybe three, major parties who will constantly fight it out between themselves. However, and I know this is moving on from the original theme of voting rights, this could all change with the introduction of true proportional representation (not the bastardised version called AV that the coalition government want us to accept) and the splitting of parliament into two parts, one part where the resultant permanent all-party coalition government discuss policies and thrash out details along the normal left/right lines, the other where the results of those debates, based on a simple numerical for or against count, are enacted into law in a way that is for the best interests of the country as a whole. not in the best interests of the particular party in power as has been the historical case. To complete the picture, local and regional government should also follow the identical system, their political makeup mirroring that at Westminster, the two parts, local and central government working in concert to both administer local matters and provide a channel for public opinion by way of national or local referendums on matters of importance.

There's no reason why such a structure couldn't be combined with a mechanism for providing voting rights as had already been discussed; the combination of the two would, I believe, give us a system of government which would be significantly more democratic than at present and would enable decisions to be made and policies introduced and implemented which were both long term and for the benefit of the country as a whole, not just short term and politically expedient.

But of course it's far too simple and logical for anyone to adopt, and of course it would permanently prevent any one single party from gaining an outright majority.