People of low intelligence should not be allowed to vote.

[Revenant Threshold]

Based on a post by Shagnasty in this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=360521) thread;

To me, the thought of a relatively pure democracy is a scary thing. Half the people have at or below median intelligence, those of any intelligence may be poorly educated, and groups have been shown through history history to do things with nothing but their own shortsighted interest in mind even at the great expense of others and maybe their own long-term future.

(my bolding)

Should people of low intelligence not be allowed to vote? On one hand, of course, unintelligent people are humans, and should have the same rights as everyone. On the other hand, could a case be legitimately made that not only are they/we potentially harming the country and everyone else by doing so, but also themselves? Politics is a tricky business; I know I don't claim to be able to understand fully every argument a politican may make, or the ramifications of every law passed.

How about people with a poor education? They likely do not understand politics entirely either, even if it's just as "simple" (to the rest of us) as terminology (which can confuse even the best and brightest). Should they be allowed to vote, not understanding the issues involved?

My own position is that a poor education should not discount one's right to vote - if it is that worrying a case, then don't take away their vote, but educate them. I also believe that, barring recognised mental retardation, low intelligence should also not disqualify someone from voting.

Thoughts?

[don't ask]

In most democracies in the world it makes no difference, you may just as well toss a coin anyway. In the US you end up with a Democrat or a Republican president, in Australia a Liberal or Labor government, in Britain a Labour or Conservative government. They each follow their respective political agendas until the people become sick of them and vote in the alternative for a while.

[Tevildo]

For starters, half the population by definition are below median intelligence. :)

Restricting the franchise is always a very difficult issue, because it results in the legislative process being biased in favour of those who can vote. Even seemingly innocuous tests can introduce bias - a literacy test, for example, will discriminate against those with inadequate educations, which usually means the poor, the racial minorities, those who are discriminated against already.

"Intelligence" itself is by no means a clear-cut property. I always do badly (or, at least, I don't score higher than "average") on intelligence tests, because I'm hopeless at arithmetic. Does that mean I'm "stupid"? I must admit that I don't vote in the first place, but I'd hate to think that I'd be denied a vote merely because my education in arithmetic, or because this one particular area of my brain (which has been rendered redundant by the calculator in any case) doesn't work as well as someone else's.

The problem (if there is a problem) is that _popularity_ is the only essential attribute of a politician in a representative democracy. Ability to do the job is secondary. Rather than restricting the franchise, it would appear more sensible to restrict the eligibility of political candidates - but who decides the critera, and who administers the tests?

[ultrafilter]

Citizens in a democracy have an obligation to be informed, and if they aren't informed, they should not be allowed to vote. But there's no infallible test for being informed, and the idea of restricting the vote from anyone who should be allowed to vote is so reprehensible that I can only support full voting rights for any legal adult.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Mark Twain once suggested that a man should recieve additional votes, more than one, as he gained in education & public service.

Logical, when you consider that voting rights can be taken away, if you are a felon.

[Gladstone]

Citizens in a democracy have an obligation to be informed, and if they aren't informed, they should not be allowed to vote. But there's no infallible test for being informed, and the idea of restricting the vote from anyone who should be allowed to vote is so reprehensible that I can only support full voting rights for any legal adult.

Even if there were an infallible test for being informed, who is to say that this would result in this informative status would be put to good use? For instance, a very informed person could have had their vote decided solely on the basis of how a particular politician's voice quality or appearance and not their substance. In 1960, VP Nixon might've looked like the better presidential candidate on paper but it was Kennedy's style and appearance that gave him the edge (as well as some alleged voting "inducement" in Illinois).

[JKellyMap]

What Tevildo said.

"Intelligence" is a not-very-useful concept (and, given its history, an even worse word). PLEASE read Stephen Jay Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man to help give you some idea of why this is so. Basically, "intelligence" was reified (forced to be conceived of as a "thing", perhaps even with identifiable loci in the genes or in the brain) when psychologists and other scientists were in the first flush of excitement over then-new statistical techniques such as principal components analysis.

Unless I'm being whooshed (or you're going for some sort of roll-the-eyes irony), your idea sounds awful. I'm just as fed up as you are with people voting for people who implement policies that do more harm than good, all in plain sight (let alone what we don't see), but there are plenty of little things you can do -- such as find forums to educate those around you -- that don't necessitate the kind of exclusionary, holier-than-thou proposal you gave.

[Gladstone]

Citizens in a democracy have an obligation to be informed, and if they aren't informed, they should not be allowed to vote. But there's no infallible test for being informed, and the idea of restricting the vote from anyone who should be allowed to vote is so reprehensible that I can only support full voting rights for any legal adult.

Even if there were an infallible test for being informed, who is to say that this would result in this informative status would be put to good use? For instance, a very informed person could have had their vote decided solely on the basis of how a particular politician's voice quality or appearance and not their substance. In 1960, VP Nixon might've looked like the better presidential candidate on paper but it was Kennedy's style and appearance that gave him the edge (as well as some alleged voting "inducement" in Illinois).

[JKellyMap]

I understand that you, Rev Thresh, are not yourself endorsing the idea that "people of low intelligence should not be allowed to vote". I just wanted to suggest that we shouldn't be using the word intelligent at all. Doing so just dignifies a hopelessly ill-defined concept.

[cosmosdan]

Well first they'd have to make some intelligence standard for people holding a public office befire any are set for voters.

[furnishesq]

This thread opens itself up to in inevititable joke:

If we didn't allow people of low intelligence to vote, (Bush, Clinton, Nixon, FDR, Polk, etc) would never have become president!

[Shagnasty]

I am the one that the originating quote came from and I certainly meant what I said in the context it was given in. It is true basically by definition and it holds true for any definition of "intelligence" or "educated" that you can come up with because I was referring to statistical properties and common human traits.

At the same time, I didn't imply that anyone should be refused a vote. I merely gave it as a reason that I think that a rather pure democracy is a bad idea. A rather pure democracy would require people to vote directly on detailed and complicated issues that are better left to professional representatives who have some motivation, time, and support services like staff to understand most of the things they vote on.

At the same time, a subset of an open democracy should be an integral subset of a republican form of government and should not be restricted. Procedures, courts, elected representatives, and checks and balances should temper direct harm that a pure democracy could inflict.

I am from the rural South and I live in New England now. I am very familiar with the phenomena of people from some parts of the country calling others "stupid" or "uneducated" in general. One thing that I have learned is that the most most educated Harvard professor that has never lived in the South knows much less about the true life that goes on there than the poorest and most rural Southerner. It is that way for all places and regions because everyone is engaged in immersive 24 hour life lessons about their area and lifestyle every day.

A mechanism for that type of feedback is necessary and invaluable. It just shouldn't be directly coupled to decisions that can affect individual rights or start law based on short-term, uninformed sentiment.

[Revenant Threshold]

I understand that you, Rev Thresh, are not yourself endorsing the idea that "people of low intelligence should not be allowed to vote". I just wanted to suggest that we shouldn't be using the word intelligent at all. Doing so just dignifies a hopelessly ill-defined concept.

Oh, I agree. "Intelligence" is a very vague term, meaning many things to many people, and we certainly don't have a foolproof measure of "Intelligence". My question was more a matter of principle, really, than actual practice - because for one thing, a lot of people would be happy to exclude the people they find unintelligent, as long as they aren't in that group themselves. ;)

There's a lot of concepts in law that are pretty arbitrary, though - if the law was clear-cut and could only be interpreted one way, court cases would be a lot simpler (though not necessarily just). I could see a law being passed accepting some measure(s), however flawed, being brought into use, though, as long as that measure would be acceptable to the majority - it might not accuratly define intelligence, but it would purport to.

At the same time, I didn't imply that anyone should be refused a vote. I merely gave it as a reason that I think that a rather pure democracy is a bad idea. A rather pure democracy would require people to vote directly on detailed and complicated issues that are better left to professional representatives who have some motivation, time, and support services like staff to understand most of the things they vote on.

I didn't mean to imply you thought they should be refused the vote - that's why I put "based on Shagnasty's post" and not "this is what Shagnasty thinks in his post". But if it was ambiguous, apologies. :)

[Evil Captor]

Given the history that made the Voting Rights Act necessary, it should be very obvious that we should never, ever, ever give the Wise Guys of Government the right to monkey with who's got the right to use the franchise. As soon as some asshole like Karl Rove has the opportunity to monkey with the franchise, he'll do so, and in a very bad way. Witness the ChoicePoint fraud in the 2000 Presidential election in Florida. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choicepoint#Florida_Voter_File_Contract)

[The Flying Dutchman]

The less intelligent and poorly educated are far less likely to make the effort to go to the polls. I can never understand why people are encouraged to vote .

[elfkin477]

Of course people of low intelligence should be able to vote - how will our politicians feel if they can't cast a vote for themselves? :p

Kidding aside, intelligence isn't something people have much control over. It wouldn't be right to withhold the privilege of voting from someone just because they didn't win the genetic lottery. Most people whose IQs fall between 99 and 70 are functional, and though perhaps not as quick to learn as "more intelligent" folks, are more or less as capable of educating themselves on the issues to a great enough degree to count as reasonably informed. It's not as though a significant portion of people with IQs over 100 are able to resist voting foolishly anyway.

[Marley23]

The less intelligent and poorly educated are far less likely to make the effort to go to the polls.
Can we get a cite for that? I can believe that people with less education are less likely to vote, but uneducated isn't the same as stupid. Are people doing studies linking intelligence to voting habits?

People who are unintelligent (or uneducated) are affected by the policies of the government just as much as smarter or better-educated people are, so I say they deserve to have the vote as well. And that includes people who are retarded or otherwise disabled.

[Voyager]

For starters, half the population by definition are below median intelligence. :)

<nitpick> This is only true if there is a perfect rank ordering by intelligence. If there is clumping, which is the real case, a whole bunch of people will be of median intelligence, and less than half below.
</nitpick>

Now, maybe those who don't understand statistics shouldn't vote. :)

[tomndebb]

(as well as some alleged voting "inducement" in Illinois).Not true. Kennedy could have lost Illinois to all the graveyards downstate (offsetting the graveyards of Chicago) and still won the election. Illinois certainly fed the victory, but it did not have the Electoral votes to make or break the election.
Kennedy won, 303 to 219. Had Illinois's (then) 27 votes swung to Nixon, Kennedy would have still won 276 to 246. The Illinois vote is one of the persistent legends of the 1960 election--and it is wrong.

[tomndebb]

<nitpick> This is only true if there is a perfect rank ordering by intelligence. If there is clumping, which is the real case, a whole bunch of people will be of median intelligence, and less than half below.
</nitpick>Well, if there is sufficient clumping, a whole bunch of people will show up in the modal average, but if that clumping is also accompanied by a very long spike of either really smart or really dumb people, that clump may find itself either above or below that median.
Now, maybe those who don't understand statistics shouldn't vote. Perhaps not. :D

[Digital Stimulus]

How very odd. While I bitch and moan as much (or more?) as the next person about "stupid voters", when I stop and think about it, I find the very suggestion of (almost) anyone not being allowed to vote neauseating and replusive. Effectively...no, wait -- explicitly -- what you're saying is that a given person should not have any say in the rules that govern their lives.

The only reason I include the "almost" qualifier above is that I would make an exception for those who purposely work to discredit or undermine the system. Which, by the way, one might read as anyone who attempts to take away the rights of others to vote.

[Argent Towers]

This thread opens itself up to in inevititable joke:

If we didn't allow people of low intelligence to vote, (Bush, Clinton, Nixon, FDR, Polk, etc) would never have become president!

The thread by nature implies that this issue is not a joke but indeed a serious problem.

[DirkGntly]

There was a time when one had to be a property owner and pay a poll tax to vote in this country. That was eventually struck down as unconstitutional, but in retrospect, that requirement may have been wise. The original intent was probably not to keep poor people from the polls (though that was the net effect, in time), but rather to ensure that those who voted had a vested interest in their own well-being and were productive members of the community in which they lived. Note that this was long before welfare, income tax, etc., so those things later made the issue less clear. I have found it interesting, though, to hear the complaints in '00 and '04 about the "red staters" having overall poorer populations, and therefore more welfare recipients, making them less-qualified to vote, since it's supposedly "blue state" money that supports them. Very interesting, considering it was mostly "blue state" populations and their voting tendencies in the last 6 or 7 decades that created the welfare situation in the first place...maybe some cosmic karma at work?

[Quartz]

Effectively...no, wait -- explicitly -- what you're saying is that a given person should not have any say in the rules that govern their lives
Just to be contrarian, so what? Hasn't this been the case for most of human history?

[Walter Windchill]

Why should only women be allowed to vote?

[Digital Stimulus]

Just to be contrarian, so what? Hasn't this been the case for most of human history?
I'm not sure this is a defensible foundation for an argument; are you saying that, for instance, since the vast bulk of people had been starving for most of human history, that's a proper state of affairs? Or that, because for most of human history, people could be arbitrarily jailed by those in power, we should throw away due process of law?

I'm sorry, but I don't think that dog will hunt.

[Evil One]

The less intelligent and poorly educated are far less likely to make the effort to go to the polls. I can never understand why people are encouraged to vote .

Because the people doing the encouraging think that their agenda will be served in driving the uninformed and unengaged to the polls.

If someone isn't going to bother to educate themselves on the issues, then I prefer they stay out of the voting booth.

One solution could be to have random locations and times of available polling places...and publish that information on the editorial page of the local newspaper. I say that tongue-in-cheek of course...but it would work.

[Liberal]

I'm not at all sure whether intelligence is any more important than character. I'd sooner trust the vote of a simple-minded old man from Harlem who lived his life in the service of his family, friends, and neighbors than the vote of a genius jackass from Harvard who wants to tell me how to run my life.

[Walter Windchill]

I'm not at all sure whether intelligence is any more important than character. I'd sooner trust the vote of a simple-minded old man from Harlem who lived his life in the service of his family, friends, and neighbors than the vote of a genius jackass from Harvard who wants to tell me how to run my life.

Columbia grad, eh?

[Bryan Ekers]

It may not be of any relevance, but Shagnasty's quote in the OP doesn't suggest to me that stupid people shouldn't be alloweed to vote; rather that safeguards should be built into government such that no single vote can bring about radical change.

[Quartz]

I'm not at all sure whether intelligence is any more important than character.
I believe that character in a candidate is of great importance. There was a pit thread which segued into discussing this in 2004.

[Walter Windchill]

I believe that character in a candidate is of great importance. There was a pit thread which segued into discussing this in 2004.

I agree with you in theory, but in reality, discussion of candidates' "character" is just a way to throw mud.

[Marley23]

I agree with you in theory, but in reality, discussion of candidates' "character" is just a way to throw mud.
In reality, any discussion of a candidate is roughly one step removed from mud-slinging.

I don't agree with Liberal all that often, but he touched on something that I didn't know how to explain. Inherent in the argument "people of lesser intelligence shouldn't vote" is a degree of unconscious 'we know best'-ism that is always alarming.

[filemat]

I admit I have not read all of the replies, but I don't think my point has been brought up. Thus;


It is a question of knowledge, not low intelligence, if you should be allowed to vote or not. IMO.

Face it, most people don't know what it is they are voting on. They vote this-or-that because they've always done so or because they were raised in a certain way. But most people simply don't know the facts about the political issues that a certain party or candidate "represent". Or they let some individual issue on a certain topic dictate what they vote for.

I would rather have an knowledgable imbecil taking an active stance than some genious or educated or intellectual vote withouth knowing what it is he or she votes on or for.

Ideally, IMO, there should be some test to qualify someone for voting. A test to prove that they actually understand what the voting is about.

(BTW, I'm the first to admit that I ought not be allowed to vote!)


Filemat

[Walter Windchill]

In reality, any discussion of a candidate is roughly one step removed from mud-slinging.

I don't agree with Liberal all that often, but he touched on something that I didn't know how to explain. Inherent in the argument "people of lesser intelligence shouldn't vote" is a degree of unconscious 'we know best'-ism that is always alarming.

Any attempt to take away the right to vote is wrongheaded. Ironically, though, I suppose the people who lobbied to get blacks, women, and native Americans the right to vote were accused of "we know bestism."

[Marley23]

Ideally, IMO, there should be some test to qualify someone for voting. A test to prove that they actually understand what the voting is about.
Your point was brought up, if not exactly in the way you phrased it. And this 'ideal' was also discussed. As other posters said, even if you ignore the pasts examples of such tests (designed to disenfranchise black people), I disagree that such testing is ideal.
Ironically, though, I suppose the people who lobbied to get blacks, women, and native Americans the right to vote were accused of "we know bestism."
I'm sure that's true. The distinction I'm trying to make here is a bit like what Evil Captor said - "Given the history that made the Voting Rights Act necessary [...] we should never, ever, ever give the Wise Guys of Government the right to monkey with who's got the right to use the franchise." 'We know best'-ism is something that should be viewed with suspicion in general, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing in 100% of cases. When it's an attempt to deny people their rights instead of guaranteeing those rights, it's a bad thing. (Of course, people will disagree about when that's happening, but that's why you need a process...)

[dre2xl]

And who writes and administers the tests that define someone's intelligence or education? The ruling government.

[Digital Stimulus]

I'm not at all sure whether intelligence is any more important than character. I'd sooner trust the vote of a simple-minded old man from Harlem who lived his life in the service of his family, friends, and neighbors than the vote of a genius jackass from Harvard who wants to tell me how to run my life.
I was going to say something akin to that earlier; I agree fully. "Intelligence", however one chooses to define it, does not necessitate sound reasoning nor good decisions.

The reason I didn't bring it up is because I think there's something much more fundamental to the issue.
Inherent in the argument "people of lesser intelligence shouldn't vote" is a degree of unconscious 'we know best'-ism that is always alarming.
Yes. Who would make the claim "voting should be limited to people of class X" that doesn't feel that they're in the (superior) class Y? Or are some pigs just more equal than others? But I think the issue is even more fundamental than that...on two levels:

Firstly, we're talking about a particular system of government -- democracy, republic, however you wish to classify it. The entire basis is that each person gets a say in their elected representative (which, I believe, is closely related to Shagnasty's view as to why a republic, as opposed to a true democracy is good). As soon as you advocate removing someone's right to vote, you're explicitly saying that you do not believe this system of government is correct. And that's fine, I suppose, as long as it is exposed for what it is -- a mild form of dictatorial rule.

Secondly, when one advocates depriving another of their right to vote, one is taking away an aspect of their right to self-determination. It seems to me that the right to vote is part and parcel of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Is there anything more fundamental to being human?

[Mehitabel]

...and lack of education is not always a matter of simple choice. Of my four grandparents, none went to college--two never finished high school. They had to leave to get to work at 15 or 16 to help support their families, and that was normal for the times (20s and 30s). However, all four of them read plenty of newspapers and books and held library cards until they died. You could have held a conversation with any of them and not known they'd had tenth-grade or just HS educations. There were gaps in their knowledge, of course, but no more than I've found talking to grad students. And far from holding eggheads in contempt, they regretted that life had not given them the chance to go further in their education.*

Yeah, yeah, the plural of anecdote is not data; but I've met too many people (mostly minorities) who are the first people in their families to be ABLE to go to college at all to look at educational levels as a simple measurement of intelligence.

* All of their kids except one (who was sent by Uncle Sam to Korea) went to college, and most, incl. both my parents, got advanced degrees. America = :cool:

[BrainGlutton]

Related thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352334

[Captain Amazing]

Kennedy won, 303 to 219. Had Illinois's (then) 27 votes swung to Nixon, Kennedy would have still won 276 to 246. The Illinois vote is one of the persistent legends of the 1960 election--and it is wrong.

The general claim is that Kennedy won by voter fraud in Illinois and Texas, and if both Illinois (27 votes) and Texas (24 votes) had gone to Niixon, it would have been 270 for Nixon, 252 for Kennedy, and Nixon would have won. I think the "Illinois voter fraud" is focused on because the alleged fraud was so egregious.

[Polerius]

Related thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352334
And a previous one: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275499

Seems people are very against such a system.

[Anne Neville]

Ideally, IMO, there should be some test to qualify someone for voting. A test to prove that they actually understand what the voting is about.

(BTW, I'm the first to admit that I ought not be allowed to vote!)

Only if I get to determine what's on the test. I will grade it according to how well people agree with my opinions. Because, if they don't agree with me, then clearly they don't actually "understand what the voting is about", now do they? :D

I kid, but not by much. There are lots of subtle ways to bias a test like that.

[MaxTheVool]

I'm not at all sure whether intelligence is any more important than character. I'd sooner trust the vote of a simple-minded old man from Harlem who lived his life in the service of his family, friends, and neighbors than the vote of a genius jackass from Harvard who wants to tell me how to run my life.

Isn't that a bit of a false dichotomy, though? I mean, not that I'm in any way endorsing the OP's plan, but what if your choices are a simple-minded old man from Harlem who lived his life in the service of his family, friends and neighbors, and a genius Harvard professor who spent his entire professional life studying political science, sociology and/or economics, and who is a truly ethical, goodhearted, decent human being who loves his family, gives back to his community, and has devoted his life to figuring out how to improve society?


I'm quite leery of the anti-intellectual tendencies which tell us that simple homsepun folk wisdom are the answers to all of life's problems. What does the simple-minded man from Harlem think about NAFTA? Does he know whether Global Warming is real? How does he feel about ethanol subsidies and alternative fuel research? How much did he know about Al Qaeda before 9/11?

[homeskillet]

Well it seems in some states (www.legis.state.ia.us/Constitution.html#a2s5) this is already the case!

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IOWA -- CODIFIED
ARTICLE II.
RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE.
Disqualified persons. SEC. 5. No idiot, or insane person, or person convicted of any infamous crime, shall be entitled to the privilege of an elector.

Even if we did tie voting privileges to a particular level of education or intelligence, I don't think it would make much of difference to the outcome.
The big problem I have with this idea is how would you decide who is and is not qualified to vote? Who makes that decision? It seems a bit naïve to think that it could ever be fairly executed.
I also have to agree with filemat, it is more an issue of knowledgeability with the issues than intelligence or education.

[Leaffan]

This is self-regulating anyway, isn't it? I mean low IQ people would be more inclined to watch Wheel of Fortune and read the National Inquirer and therefore wouldn't have a clue who to vote for in the first place. So, they don't vote.

In Canada their has been some discussion on implementing mandatory voting, which I believe you have in Australia. I am totally against that for the above reason. I say letting the morons opt out of voting would be more beneficial.