Intelligence Standards

Would it be beneficial to have an intelligence standard for voting or running for office? I don't know how you would be able to fairly implement something like this, but if it was somehow fairly implemented, I think it would work much better than pure democracy.

Would it be beneficial to have an intelligence standard for voting or running for office? I don't know how you would be able to fairly implement something like this, but if it was somehow fairly implemented, I think it would work much better than pure democracy.

Inequality, heavier governmental regulation of voting rights, 15th amendment.  It would lead to an even more elitist government then we already have.

Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?

Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?

I'm not too worried.

Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?

Metaphor much lolz?

Inequality, heavier governmental regulation of voting rights, 15th amendment.  It would lead to an even more elitist government then we already have.

This hypothetical isn't necessarily in the US. You would prefer pure democracy over those with higher intelligence on the issues they are voting for? Why is that?

A pure democracy would outright suck unless the majority of people were highly educated; and they aren't.  The people making major decisions need to be well-informed about their choices, so having people elect representatives (democratic republic) leans towards better decision-making.  The problem with that model, however, is that people can still vote in dumb representatives.

I agree with the original post.  I admittedly don't know how (or if) it could be implemented, but a minimum intelligence standard would, in theory at least, cause more intelligent people to vote, meaning more intelligent representatives are elected, meaning more intelligent decisions would be made.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 10, 2010, 09:48:56 PM

Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?

Metaphor much lolz?

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on May 10, 2010, 09:27:14 PM

Inequality, heavier governmental regulation of voting rights, 15th amendment.  It would lead to an even more elitist government then we already have.

This hypothetical isn't necessarily in the US. You would prefer pure democracy over those with higher intelligence on the issues they are voting for? Why is that?

Because I would rather the majority, including the idiots, make decisions rather than the elite few.

Because I would rather the majority, including the idiots, make decisions rather than the elite few.

I don't know how your using the word elite, but it seems that its different from how it is commonly used. An intelligence standard would only test for intelligence, wealthy or powerful people (what I would commonly see as the "elite") wouldn't get an exception, and those with little or no wealth/power would still get to vote so long as they had a higher level of intelligence.

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on May 10, 2010, 10:24:52 PM

Because I would rather the majority, including the idiots, make decisions rather than the elite few.

I don't know how your using the word elite, but it seems that its different from how it is commonly used. An intelligence standard would only test for intelligence, wealthy or powerful people (what I would commonly see as the "elite") wouldn't get an exception, and those with little or no wealth/power would still get to vote so long as they had a higher level of intelligence.

Should uneducated workers (for example, first generation immigrants) not be allowed to vote on politicians who determine how their taxes are used?  I hate to quote the bigots of the Revolutionary War but taxation without representation.  Also, the standards would be set by the government which is inherently a bad idea.

Guys, this is why we have public education.

We just need to suck it up and stop letting whiny parents get their way when students fail. The standards are so bad it's laughable. What's worse is that many schools try to pass kids just for numbers/happy parents/make room.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 10, 2010, 09:48:56 PM

Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?

Metaphor much lolz?

Really?  And just what was the metaphor referring to?

I have an alternative, at least for the British/westminster style politics.

The second chamber (In the UK's case, the House of Lords) would be run as a council of peers, representatives from the area of society which they are the most experienced in and only those who were 'peers' of this office would be allowed to vote for them, for instance the representatives for Science would be voted for by scientists with maybe 2 or 3 reps for each area

This way, not only is is vaguely democratic but people who know what they're talking about would be able to influence a vote.

Some of the areas I'd have:
Armed forces
Industry
Commerce
Construction
Science
Technology
Religion (begrudgingly)
16-18 year olds
18-40 year olds
41-65 year olds
65yo+
Press/journalism
Arts
Agriculture/rural
The Unemployed

Not a complete list but you get the idea.

I have an alternative, at least for the British/westminster style politics.

The second chamber (In the UK's case, the House of Lords) would be run as a council of peers, representatives from the area of society which they are the most experienced in and only those who were 'peers' of this office would be allowed to vote for them, for instance the representatives for Science would be voted for by scientists with maybe 2 or 3 reps for each area

This way, not only is is vaguely democratic but people who know what they're talking about would be able to influence a vote.

Some of the areas I'd have:
Armed forces
Industry
Commerce
Construction
Science
Technology
Religion (begrudgingly)
16-18 year olds
18-40 year olds
41-65 year olds
65yo+
Press/journalism
Arts
Agriculture/rural
The Unemployed

Not a complete list but you get the idea.

Seems like the best form of democracy to ensure political equality.

We talked about this in one of my courses this last semester in relation to China and Singapore. Apparently it has been considered, even by men such as Lee Kuan Yew. The problem rested in administering it, which many considered to be impossible (and rightly so). For now I am content with making voting just difficult enough that those who should not be contributing to the decision making process get frightened away.

As depressed as I feel whenever I see YouTube clips of people making stupid votes (by which I mean voting for a stupid reason, not voting for someone that I disagree with), it isn't democracy if we exclude people like that.

I am in favor of an aristocracy.

"Intelligence tests" were abused in the American south, so it will never happen here though.

I have an alternative, at least for the British/westminster style politics.

The second chamber (In the UK's case, the House of Lords) would be run as a council of peers, representatives from the area of society which they are the most experienced in and only those who were 'peers' of this office would be allowed to vote for them, for instance the representatives for Science would be voted for by scientists with maybe 2 or 3 reps for each area

This way, not only is is vaguely democratic but people who know what they're talking about would be able to influence a vote.

Some of the areas I'd have:
Armed forces
Industry
Commerce
Construction
Science
Technology
Religion (begrudgingly)
16-18 year olds
18-40 year olds
41-65 year olds
65yo+
Press/journalism
Arts
Agriculture/rural
The Unemployed

Not a complete list but you get the idea.

Without wanting to sound critical, I believe that something similar existed in Mussonlini's Italy.

I have an alternative, at least for the British/westminster style politics.

The second chamber (In the UK's case, the House of Lords) would be run as a council of peers, representatives from the area of society which they are the most experienced in and only those who were 'peers' of this office would be allowed to vote for them, for instance the representatives for Science would be voted for by scientists with maybe 2 or 3 reps for each area

This way, not only is is vaguely democratic but people who know what they're talking about would be able to influence a vote.

Some of the areas I'd have:
Armed forces
Industry
Commerce
Construction
Science
Technology
Religion (begrudgingly)
16-18 year olds
18-40 year olds
41-65 year olds
65yo+
Press/journalism
Arts
Agriculture/rural
The Unemployed

Not a complete list but you get the idea.

The problem comes when you have to make policies that span multiple areas, like budget cuts.  Each of those people would say that their "group" is the most important.  You'd probably end up with deadlock on most issues, especially since the common ground between each group would be very slim at best.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on May 11, 2010, 04:49:35 AM

I have an alternative, at least for the British/westminster style politics.

The second chamber (In the UK's case, the House of Lords) would be run as a council of peers, representatives from the area of society which they are the most experienced in and only those who were 'peers' of this office would be allowed to vote for them, for instance the representatives for Science would be voted for by scientists with maybe 2 or 3 reps for each area

This way, not only is is vaguely democratic but people who know what they're talking about would be able to influence a vote.

Some of the areas I'd have:
Armed forces
Industry
Commerce
Construction
Science
Technology
Religion (begrudgingly)
16-18 year olds
18-40 year olds
41-65 year olds
65yo+
Press/journalism
Arts
Agriculture/rural
The Unemployed

Not a complete list but you get the idea.

Without wanting to sound critical, I believe that something similar existed in Mussonlini's Italy.

But this would only make up one half of a legislative body.  The other half would be a simple election for whatever candidate.

The same was true in Italy, minus actual democracy. Like I said, I wasn't trying to be critical, just stating that similar systems have existed. If I remember correctly, under Mussolini the upper chamber only represented economic and industrial groups (e.g. coal industry, steel industry, agriculture, etc etc) rather than bodies like the police and military. Indeed, something I would add is that such a system would severely compromise any democracy - there is a reason that the police, judiciary and armed forces are supposed to be 'above politics'. Inolving them would be a recipe for instability during any crisis.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 10, 2010, 09:48:56 PM

Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?

Metaphor much lolz?

Im still waiting for the metaphor explanation.

Quote from: Sadistic on May 10, 2010, 10:12:41 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 10, 2010, 09:48:56 PM

Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?

Metaphor much lolz?

Im still waiting for the metaphor explanation.

You are one impatient son of a bitch. Have I been posting at all since you first asked for an explanation of the metaphor? No.

I read that he made a statement about it being a metaphor, but not what the metaphor was, but I'm not going to do your work for you. If you honestly want to believe that someone is so completely out of touch with reality that they could actually think people might make an island tip over, and all because they don't agree with your own political policy, you should really consider questioning your objectivity.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 11, 2010, 06:45:15 PM

Quote from: Sadistic on May 10, 2010, 10:12:41 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 10, 2010, 09:48:56 PM

Ok but seriously?  This is the kind of person you want voting on current issues facing this nation?

Metaphor much lolz?

Im still waiting for the metaphor explanation.

You are one impatient son of a bitch. Have I been posting at all since you first asked for an explanation of the metaphor? No.

I read that he made a statement about it being a metaphor, but not what the metaphor was, but I'm not going to do your work for you. If you honestly want to believe that someone is so completely out of touch with reality that they could actually think people might make an island tip over, and all because they don't agree with your own political policy, you should really consider questioning your objectivity.

I actually lol'd and then facepalm'd.

Would it be beneficial to have an intelligence standard for voting or running for office? I don't know how you would be able to fairly implement something like this, but if it was somehow fairly implemented, I think it would work much better than pure democracy.

How long until the test for voting would be manipulated in a way to give certain people more votes?

Then you have the problem of separating intelligence from education. If you live in a rich area and go to a rich school you will have a better education giving you the ability to vote even with an inferior intellect to a poorer citizen. This would skew voting giving the rich more of a say in our world. If you go simply be intelligence then you aren't accomplishing anything because an ignorant intelligent person can't make an informed vote any better than a mentally handicapped person.

Your idea would simply lead to fail and sad.

Quote from: Sadistic on May 10, 2010, 09:25:55 PM

Would it be beneficial to have an intelligence standard for voting or running for office? I don't know how you would be able to fairly implement something like this, but if it was somehow fairly implemented, I think it would work much better than pure democracy.

How long until the test for voting would be manipulated in a way to give certain people more votes?

Then you have the problem of separating intelligence from education. If you live in a rich area and go to a rich school you will have a better education giving you the ability to vote even with an inferior intellect to a poorer citizen. This would skew voting giving the rich more of a say in our world. If you go simply be intelligence then you aren't accomplishing anything because an ignorant intelligent person can't make an informed vote any better than a mentally handicapped person.

Your idea would simply lead to fail and sad.

I'm not asking if it would be realistic to implement this. I don't think it would be realistic at this time either, and yes, would probably end in failure. If it was somehow fairly implemented though, would you consider it beneficial?

Quote from: Raist on May 11, 2010, 08:55:52 PM

Quote from: Sadistic on May 10, 2010, 09:25:55 PM

Would it be beneficial to have an intelligence standard for voting or running for office? I don't know how you would be able to fairly implement something like this, but if it was somehow fairly implemented, I think it would work much better than pure democracy.

How long until the test for voting would be manipulated in a way to give certain people more votes?

Then you have the problem of separating intelligence from education. If you live in a rich area and go to a rich school you will have a better education giving you the ability to vote even with an inferior intellect to a poorer citizen. This would skew voting giving the rich more of a say in our world. If you go simply be intelligence then you aren't accomplishing anything because an ignorant intelligent person can't make an informed vote any better than a mentally handicapped person.

Your idea would simply lead to fail and sad.

I'm not asking if it would be realistic to implement this. I don't think it would be realistic at this time either, and yes, would probably end in failure. If it was somehow fairly implemented though, would you consider it beneficial?

No, government would only serve the minority of the voters.

I agree that the current political systems that exist around the world need major improvement (read: replacement), but this isn't it, for reasons that Wakka Wakka has already stated. What is needed is to abolish the concept of national boundaries, and have two levels of government; one local (a pure democracy governing a region no larger than about 50 kilometres across) and one global (either a representative democracy or a panarchy which has no local authority within any regional government).

The local governments set their own laws and have their own small police force to enforce them within their own jurisdiction. Being pure democracies, there is no oppression by a single dictator or elite group. The only criterion for voting is demonstrating an understanding of voting principles; this replaces the age restriction of today's pseudo-democracy. The primary function of this government is simply to keep order.

The global tier of government primarily funds systems which are too large scale for local governments to provide (for instance, public education, medical, transport and welfare) and facilitates free trade between local governments. No military forces exist whatsoever.

Of course, this is more like scaffolding than an actual workable idea, but I think this should be the basic form of future systems of government.

The problem comes when you have to make policies that span multiple areas, like budget cuts.  Each of those people would say that their "group" is the most important.  You'd probably end up with deadlock on most issues, especially since the common ground between each group would be very slim at best.

In the UK, a bill can only be rejected by the Lords three times, I wouldn't intend on changing this. The whole point of the CoP would be to add one more layer of specialist knowledge on the relevant subject matter.

Even if there was total disagreement on an issue, say stem-cell research between the Science peers and the religious peers then they could only hold back the law for 3 readings, discussions and votes. after that the Commons would either change it to reflect the opinions of the peers or leave it as it is, knowing full well that the Peers couldn't block it again.

Yes, there would be arguments and disputes but it would be better than the current house of Lords which is made up of unelected old boys and reverands

Quote from: Raist on May 11, 2010, 08:55:52 PM

Quote from: Sadistic on May 10, 2010, 09:25:55 PM

Would it be beneficial to have an intelligence standard for voting or running for office? I don't know how you would be able to fairly implement something like this, but if it was somehow fairly implemented, I think it would work much better than pure democracy.

How long until the test for voting would be manipulated in a way to give certain people more votes?

Then you have the problem of separating intelligence from education. If you live in a rich area and go to a rich school you will have a better education giving you the ability to vote even with an inferior intellect to a poorer citizen. This would skew voting giving the rich more of a say in our world. If you go simply be intelligence then you aren't accomplishing anything because an ignorant intelligent person can't make an informed vote any better than a mentally handicapped person.

Your idea would simply lead to fail and sad.

I'm not asking if it would be realistic to implement this. I don't think it would be realistic at this time either, and yes, would probably end in failure. If it was somehow fairly implemented though, would you consider it beneficial?

I really don't think it would be beneficial. Perhaps some sort of intelligence test and psychological evaluation for elected officials. I'm not talking harvard graduate here, I'm talking about the ability to take in information and fairly evaluate it without simply siding with their political party.

Political views give idiots a crutch, all they have to do is side with one group on a controversial issue and they get a support base. I know a guy running for mayor in my town who mentioned his stance on abortion. Considering mayors have no say whatsoever on abortion this was a meaningless divisive stance.

Mayor McCheese was surprisingly pro-abortion.