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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.”
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.
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…)
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.
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?
…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 =
