Also, the new law should say that your IQ needs to be at least 120. This way, each vote is guaranteed to have been the product of deep genuin thought.
2006-10-27 11:09:08 · 19 answers · asked by Casey 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
An IQ of 120 guarantees deep, genuine (spelling....) thought?
That's silly.
How silly of you to think that your annual income is any indication that you're more capable of voting than a person of lower class. Silly, silly, silly.
2006-10-27 11:17:47 · answer #1 · answered by girlnamedbliss 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Theoretically at least, this makes sense - to have a high income you have to be pretty good AT SOMETHING. But I'm not sure this would translate into top notch political savvy that would insure the best candidates are elected. You can be a great actor and make oodles, but be a complete dip when it comes to anything philosophical. (You can think of examples without even trying!) Likewise for I.Q. - I've known many brains in the tech world who couldn't offer too many original thoughts when it came to economics, law & justice, and the humanities. Originally, the Constitution only permited people to vote who owned property. The theory was that the best choices would be made by people who had somethig to lose if dipsy candidates were elected. On this basis, would you agree that we might restrict voting to only those who earned their own living, and paid taxes? Just a thought!!
2006-10-27 19:03:37 · answer #2 · answered by Pete 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok, I'll play your sick little reindeer game. My sister has a Phd in Genetics, graduated at the top of her class at Texas A&M and is now a research scientist in Oregon. She chose the position at a lower salary than other offers she recieved so that she could do research in a specific field. She makes $50,000 a year. So, by your logic, she should not be allowed to vote?
You have issues.
2006-10-27 18:19:58 · answer #3 · answered by jemmy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And you would be dead at the hands of the middle class and average IQ mob. Nice try, the idiocy and lack of deep genuine thought in this suggestion is mind-boggling.
2006-10-27 19:36:53 · answer #4 · answered by rohannesian 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you a child?
Do your parents have a little money, and they have deluded you into thinking they are smarter than anybody else, and the "poor" people are poor because they are stupid?
Grow up.
You aren't even CLOSE to being able to figure out what society is all about yet.... much less qualified to think of new laws.
Iâ¥â«âmiaâ¼âº†
2006-10-27 18:22:39 · answer #5 · answered by mia2kl2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's probably because you're an elitist moron who can't accept the thought of the lower classes with any power. This fight was fought when the Constitution was first written and the Federalists, i.e. you, lost.
2006-10-27 18:17:34 · answer #6 · answered by psryb 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you spelled genuine wrong
i guess you wouldn't be voting because you couldn't put much thought into this question. how could you even vote for people to run this country.
2006-10-27 18:51:05 · answer #7 · answered by Lexi 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
..............You are the reason nobody likes rich people, because you have the opinion that only rich people are capable of genuine thought. Even so, if this were the law, then these guys would only vote for people that would make them richer.
2006-10-27 18:25:02 · answer #8 · answered by The Crow 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
we got rid of this idea when we kicked the Redcoats out of the colonies!!patriarchal royalty? only moneied interests or slave holders or property owners can vote? where in the hell did yu get thisidea? go back to school!
2006-10-27 19:55:59 · answer #9 · answered by richard c 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah and we should all move to china where we wont have to vote huh? Are you even from America?
2006-10-27 18:18:52 · answer #10 · answered by RWIZ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋