Up vanity, down royal state

[opel80uk]

A right-winger wanting to restrict who is able to vote, based on intelligence. Who'd have thunk it?

The beauty of it is, the same poster who talks about 'pro-immigration retardedness' and wants to limit voting as it's 'too complex' for some, stated not too long ago that he was thinking of voting UKIP. And is from Ireland. Married to a German. Living in the UK.

Oh, (on so many levels) the irony.

[SeriousSam]

I'm not saying that people "can" be irrational, I am saying that everyone "is". We as humans may like to think that we are rational, but it is glaringly obvious with only a cursory examination of our psyche and behaviour that emotional / experiential bias is ubiquitous. Yes a few people are self aware enough to recognise when it is happening most of the time. However, even they will make mistakes or fail to recognise self deception at times. Furthermore just because someone acts responsibly and "learns" about a subject before making a decision doesn't automatically mean they will do so rationally. Like it or not there will always be something lurking away in our psyche which will result in conformational bias.

So when we are all flawed in a myriad of different ways how do you set an objective test to work out; who is least affected, where to set the "bar"? Simple answer is you cannot, so why run off down a blind alley...

[wasabi]

So when we are all flawed in a myriad of different ways how do you set an objective test to work out; who is least affected, where to set the "bar"? Simple answer is you cannot, so why run off down a blind alley...

It isn't a test to evaluate someone's psyche - that is a straw man argument. It is JUST a test to work out who is of below average intelligence and exclude them. The bar is the average.

[Galant]

To drive on the road we require people to pass a competence test. To take part in running the country, a much more complex task, we don't. Why?

Because driving requires your personal handling of heavy machinery where physical damage may be a direct result and responsibility.

Voting is an expression of your opinion and preference and there are no limits to it. Running the country is, in this context, done by the people for whom we vote, not the voters themselves, although even then "running the country" is extremely vague and different parts of that job will require different types of expertise and experience and on top of that, even the end goal is subject to debate.

[wasabi]

Running the country is, in this context, done by the people for whom we vote,

No reason in the modern world bills going through parliament could not be proposed / ratified by people logging in from home.

[peterb]

No reason in the modern world bills going through parliament could not be proposed / ratified by people logging in from home.

Because contentious issues would never be ratified. One of the reasons we have politicians is to make those difficult decisions - and take the flac from those who are disadvantaged by them. It is rare for any legislation to please everyone all the time. Would bank robbers vote for laws about money laundering?

That trivial example aside, there are many cases whre difficult decisions have to be taken for the greater good, rather than for individual benefit.

[SeriousSam]

Correct me if I am wrong Wasabi but I am assuming that your argument that using an IQ test will result in a voting population that will vote more rationally. What I am pointing out is that it won't. People with a high IQ are just as irrational as those with a low IQ.

You may as well toss a coin; heads you vote and tails you don't. As that is what it amounts to.

[wasabi]

Correct me if I am wrong Wasabi but I am assuming that your argument that using an IQ test will result in a voting population that will vote more rationally.

That is not what I said.

[wasabi]

Because contentious issues would never be ratified.


...


One of the reasons we have politicians is to make those difficult decisions - and take the flac from those who are disadvantaged by them.
That trivial example aside, there are many cases whre difficult decisions have to be taken for the greater good, rather than for individual benefit.

That is why we have majorities. No reason it can't work like Yes / No divisions in the Commons.

[SeriousSam]

That is not what I said.

So what is the basis for your reasoning?

[wasabi]

So what is the basis for your reasoning?

Below average IQ people shouldn't be allowed to make electoral decisions. They are simply not bright enough to understand.

Your argument follows the same logic as we should allow drunk drivers because banning them doesn't stop road accidents.

[herulach]

That is why we have majorities. No reason it can't work like Yes / No divisions in the Commons.

Majority rule isn't the point of democracy though. At the present moment in time majority rule would likely end up with passing some law to deport all the benefit scrounging ukranian single parents that seem to be everywhere these days.

Who proposes laws? Public subscription? What about all those people with high IQs that don't own computers? Or who don't know how computers work and pass a law backdooring encryption because peadophiles and terrorists allowing everyone to see how they're voting.

Sometimes someone taking a properly informed decision based on criteria that aren't 'will i be immediately better off as a result of this is necessary'. Whilst I'd love to live in Star Trek where everyone is a highly educated socially minded type of person the fact is we don't. Under that type of system I would bet my house on a 'we're going to stop issuing overseas aid and give you £1000' law getting passed, even though its clearly irresponsible and not in anyones long term interest.

Daft as it is, our present system is probably as good as you're likely to get. An elected house of lords would serve no purpose as it would likely have a similar split of parties spouting the same populist drivel as you have in the commons. Unelected as they are, they actually do a pretty decent job of filtering out the worst of the legislation that gets passed up to them.

Below average IQ people shouldn't be allowed to make electoral decisions. They are simply not bright enough to understand.

Your argument follows the same logic as we should allow drunk drivers because banning them doesn't stop road accidents.

Sorry, but that can't not be a deliberate troll post. You'd suggest excluding 50% of the population from voting on the basis that they're too stupid? The confederacy just called and they want you to stop plagarising their election manifesto.

[wasabi]

Majority rule isn't the point of democracy though. At the present moment in time majority rule would likely end up with passing some law to deport all the benefit scrounging ukranian single parents that seem to be everywhere these days.

Yep. Best mumsie keeps us safe from ourselves and gives us pocket money if we're good.

Or who don't know how computers work and pass a law backdooring encryption because peadophiles and terrorists allowing everyone to see how they're voting.

Cos that manifesto pledge didn't just happen...

Sometimes someone taking a properly informed decision based on criteria that aren't 'will i be immediately better off as a result of this is necessary'. Whilst I'd love to live in Star Trek where everyone is a highly educated socially minded type of person the fact is we don't. Under that type of system I would bet my house on a 'we're going to stop issuing overseas aid and give you £1000' law getting passed, even though its clearly irresponsible and not in anyones long term interest.

Which is why stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote. See the pattern?

Daft as it is, our present system is probably as good as you're likely to get. An elected house of lords would serve no purpose as it would likely have a similar split of parties spouting the same populist drivel as you have in the commons. Unelected as they are, they actually do a pretty decent job of filtering out the worst of the legislation that gets passed up to them.

They might, or they might also recognise the regions. Or be partly made up of informed specialists for particular roles. Your view seems unduly pessimistic.

How would/could it work? Instead of the Lords what about a system where each UK citizen or above average intelligence gets to vote on 10 laws a year. Their choice which. The laws have already gone through the Commons, and have been debated and fine-tuned by parliamentary committee.

Sorry, but that can't not be a deliberate troll post. You'd suggest excluding 50% of the population from voting on the basis that they're too stupid? The confederacy just called and they want you to stop plagarising their election manifesto.

Immature insult. Please stop it.

[peterb]

So having proposed a version of eugenics, are you going to exclude women, or any other arbitrary group?

"There there dear, run along and make a nice cup of tea and don't bother your pretty little head with things you don't understand"

Purrlease.

[wasabi]

So having proposed a version of eugenics, are you going to exclude women, or any other arbitrary group?

"There there dear, run along and make a nice cup of tea and don't bother your pretty little head with things you don't understand"

Purrlease.

It has nothing to do with eugenics. I suggest you find a dictionary before using words you don't understand.

It has nothing to do with gender.

I would normally expect better from you.

Anyway - I'm done with this thread - fed up with people spectacularly demolishing arguments nobody made.

[opel80uk]

Best. Thread. Ever.