Should people below a certain IQ not be allowed to vote?

Question

Unless say, you can name 3 of the policies of the person who you're voting for?

Wouldn't this be better for the country as a whole? If every voter were to take a standardized test. Even if it meant a couple million people lost the right to vote, with more informed straight-thinking voters surely you would see the truely best candidate win, as opposed to the prettiest/most famous, most 'hyped-up', etc, right?

You get people voting for the stupidest reasons (I.e. There will be women who will vote for Hilary solely because she's a woman, and men who will avoid voting for her because she's a woman), and I think things just shouldn't be that way for a productive society meaning to go forward.

If you were below the IQ level and still really wish to vote, then it's simple- just learn & remember 3 or so of their policies to recall when you go for the vote. You could perhaps select them from a multiple choice sheet or something to that effect.

Aha! As for not speaking english, you could have different language question sheets available too, along with support for blind & deaf, etc- simple. I'm no racist, I just hadn't thought of the language point, (which is a good one!)

As I said, you can vote IF YOU'RE INFORMED, that's not unreasonably restrictive IMO, because if you really want to vote THEN YOU CAN!!

And as for the IQ levels varying, the test could be done every election year- the cap could be set at say 80 (an IQ of 100 would be the national average and 91% of people have an IQ high enough to qualify that way) - as mentioned it's relative, but if it was only national citizens taking the test then that wouldn't matter).

Answer 1

That fortunately for you is unconstitutional.

Answer 2

IQ has nothing to do with the ability of an individual to make an informed decision about selecting their leaders. The problem is that the media has made elections a popularity contest and many of the candidates run around promising everybody a piece of the pie. Morons and geniuses alike are able to self delude themselves into believing that they are going to get what they are promised even when they know that the politicians cannot possibly deliver on all of their promises. Until people start developing some common sense and force these politicians to put up or shut up. Nothing will change.

Answer 3

IQ is a relative thing, and the standards are always changing. The tests are usually based on, in this country, a good understanding of the English language, and so people who are not as adept at English would be placed at a disadvantage. And since IQ is based on the average of all those taking the test at a given time, it is NOT absolute intelligence, just where you rank compared to the rest of those taking the test at that time..

I would be out of voting if I had to list three ideals of everybody on the ballot, which you would have to do to be sure people knew what they were voting for and all the alternatives.

Do YOU know what all the various minority parties espouse? Some of them have very good ideas on government, but do not have the money to get exposure! And if you had to know three things about every party on the ballot, and every person on the ballot, would YOU personally be able to vote today?

Though yes, it would be nice if every voter knew enough about every candidate to vote intelligently. And it would be nice if all the information was presented equally to all voters over enough time that they could see the results, and make intelligent decisions as to the best candidates for each office.

But I do not see it happening, especially with the way the two major parties work together to keep 3rd parties off the ballot and too poor to compete for the ears of the people.

I also note that when I was in school and I believe also still now, if there is anything said about voting and the responsibilities, it is that our "two-party" system is best and never vote for a 3rd party regardless of how good their ideas are as it is a vote lost. Since the Demopublicans are basically one party looking out for the good of the two major parties, we have very little to really choose from, most of the time.

We do have third parties, with people who put principles ahead of money and votes, but they are shoved aside by the two major parties, so few know they exist, usually, and fewer what they stand for. And this is unfortunate and deprives of us of potentials for good government, government by other than the rich and unscrupulous.

And you could always upgrade our school system and remove it from governmental controls and Politically Correct requirements. Get back to learning. And making sure children know what they need to know to be good citizens when they leave school.

I agree, right now our people vote on stupid things that really have little to do with running our country constitutionally and keeping American great by keeping us good. In fact, it seems that being honest and good has little to do with being elected or getting into government positions.

Judges, for example, are not quizzed on legal matters, but political affiliations and Political Correctness, and those who do not follow the majority opinions are publicly pilloried not on their legal knowledge but on side issues, all too often.

But to set up a government by the intellectual elite is as dangerous as no requirements at all other than being able to read and write enough to get registered and mark a ballot.

I think the question is good, but I think the suggested solution will not work well and keep us a great nation. After all, we started out with only upper class male property holders voting, and found that did not work well either!

Answer 4

I understand your point but would be against any restrictions or limitations of voting.

The problem is the Corporate media treats the election like an American Idol Horserace. Usually fundraising and poll numbers are discussed more by the pundits than actual positions.

Candidates that reflect the views of a majority of American citizens on "Free Trade," Healthcare and Military Spending like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel or Ron Paul are either ignored or marginalized by the media who refers to them as kooks or alsorans because they lack Corporate funding.

I watch the debates and ignore the "spin."

Answer 5

With the USA on last place of the modern, western style countries in IQ (91% average IQ - see Nation IQ average 2006, offical CIA Handbook)? Who could vote?

Answer 6

Yes, I agree, but I would even make it easier. Ask a simple question, like who is the republican/democrat running. There are too many people who have no idea who is running, they just vote for the party. Ask which party supports pro-choice? Real simple questions like these would probably knock out 15% of the voters, and maybe we would get better candidates.

Answer 7

I am a firm believer, that candidates shouldn't even be named on the ballot.
The ballots should consist of questions about the answer, and whichever candidate matches up with the majority as they have answered, wins the election.
this would kill party voting, smear tactics, etc

Answer 8

IQ has nothing to do with voter awareness. It's a shame, but it is really a popularity contest.

Answer 9

thanks for a Good and intelligent question and one that needs addressed by our so called comrade law makers, I don't see any thing in the constitution that would prohibit this rule or law, and why should some one who don't even know the candidates name be allowed to vote so he or she can collect their $5 making it a sure thing for some one with plenty of $5 bills, and that is about the way our elections are handled today ,

Answer 10

The great achievement people ,who fought for democratic rights, ultimately got was the "universal suffrage". It cannot be so easily fettered or hedged.

Answer 11

There are a lot of wackjobs with high IQ (esp in academia) that shouldn't be allowed to vote.