Wondering what peoples' opinions were on instituting an IQ test for people who wish to register to vote. I know IQ tests aren't great measurements of intellect but it at least gives you a ballpark estimate of what a person is capable of. Of course some people have issues taking tests, this could be remedied with some other form of testing.

So what's your opinion on having to pass an IQ test before voting?

I am against the testing of IQ for those registered to vote simply because of the reasons you mentioned: that not only are some individuals not great test takers, but IQ tests aren't the greatest measure of knowledge.

A more appropriate solution should such a program ever be implemented would be for those about to vote to demonstrate a reasonable knowledge of their political system.

^^^ I totally agree. I think everyone should have the right to vote, but in order to exercise that right you should need to demonstrate a basic understanding of political theory and current issues. I think education of this nature should be offered for free.

Ignoring all other issues, I think that IQ tests tend to be very culturally oriented. This seems all too possible to exploit, since the tests can be designed to be easier for certain demographics. What's more, in a similar fashion, said IQ tests will ban a lot of people who couldn't get an education from voting, removing a whole demographic and thereby quite probably giving one party a greater advantage.

1) IQ tests are not a true representation of intelligence, nor do they represent one's knowledge of political candidates or of the the U.S. government.

2) This is a representative democracy - IQ scores are irrelevant. Everyone has the right to vote.

3) IQ test are biased towards a certain demographic. The U.S. population is diverse.

4) Too much bureaucracy and cost to the tax payers.

5) Unconstitutional.

I heard an interesting idea about voting limitations.

On the ballot, you would display two arguments or quotes for different sides of a topical issue, each representing one of the candidates in the election. However, the voter doesn't know who said the quote, and thus is simply left to choose the side he agrees with. For the educated, this shouldn't be a big problem, but for the voter who chooses on ignorance, it will be. At least, that's the idea.

I heard an interesting idea about voting limitations.

On the ballot, you would display two arguments or quotes for different sides of a topical issue, each representing one of the candidates in the election. However, the voter doesn't know who said the quote, and thus is simply left to choose the side he agrees with. For the educated, this shouldn't be a big problem, but for the voter who chooses on ignorance, it will be. At least, that's the idea.

And thus the next President of the most powerful country in the World is chosen based off ONE topic. That's a wonderful idea. Absolutely brilliant.

Yeah, I see now the error of my ways. Although I do not like the idea of whoever wants to may vote. I really think there must be some sort of regulation in so far as a "test" to see who knows the issues and is not voting out of ignorance.

Hare_Geist, I have heard that the tests can be quite culturally oriented. However, where I am these test often are administered to kids who very recently immigrated to the US and so do not have a great knowledge of American culture. They administer a test designed to be as culturally unbiased as possible. This is not to say that the test is completely unbiased, it's just that I know people who are new citizens and are in Mentally Gifted classes after taking these tests.

I agree with most others, an IQ test isn't the proper test. Perhaps a test that shows knowledge of the candidates' views/policies or on the political process itself, or both. Maybe include a 'true/false' section too, like "barack obama is a muslim and a known terrorist" or "john mccain served in the civil war" or whatever. But yeah, there are too many ignorant motherfuckers who honestly believed that barack obama was a terrorist or that john mccain made up his stories about being a POW.

Whoever makes/grades IQ tests would have a hell of a lot of power.

Whoever makes/grades IQ tests would have a hell of a lot of power.

I suppose. However, so do those who operate polling stations.

I agree that it should be based on knowledge of our political system but not that it should be based on knowledge of the issues. Some people care about certain things less than others.

Specifically, they should have to show that they understand the powers granted to the office being voted on, and that they know how the candidate voted on several pieces of legislation (which could be selected from a sizable list with comprehensible descriptions for each bill).

This would force potential voters to do a minimum of actual research into what they're really voting for as opposed to just watching the news a few times and listening to some vague talking points.

Obama wouldn't have been elected if an IQ test was required.

Obama wouldn't have been elected if an IQ test was required.
Ha. ha. ha. Try not to get overly partisan.

I guess what I had in mind all along was some sort of aptitude test and not necessarily an IQ test. I was just at a lose for words....

You guys are only thinking about presidential elections. What about local and state races where even the smart people know very little about the candidates and issues? Too complicated to have to take a test to see if you are informed. God think of all the local judge races in odd years. How do you even judge a judge?

We need to realize that Congress holds a lot lot lot of power in our government, and while the president is a prominent figure head, it is Congress who makes the law and must be in agreement in order to create law. But how much do you know about your Congressman? Do you even know who the person is? What do they stand for? What is their voting record? What bills have they sponsored? What issues do they feel passionately about? What have they done for your constituency specifically? Go get educated on all that shit and then come back and shut the fuck up.

This will never happen but what are you suggesting be done on the basis of the tests?

People with higher scores get more highly weighted votes?

What dummies voted for McCain and risked Palin becoming Prez if he kicked the bucket?

DT

This will never happen but what are you suggesting be done on the basis of the tests?

People with higher scores get more highly weighted votes?

What dummies voted for McCain and risked Palin becoming Prez if he kicked the bucket?

DT

If someone doesn't know what they're voting for, they don't know what they're voting for; discount the vote entirely.

If someone doesn't know what they're voting for, they don't know what they're voting for; discount the vote entirely.

Agreed.

dal7timgar, I do not think that those with higher scores should have their votes weighted. I think you should have to pass some sort of test to vote and after that, you can vote. Those who do better than others should not receive any special treatment.

If someone doesn't know what they're voting for, they don't know what they're voting for; discount the vote entirely.

Again, do you realize how this would apply to 95% of voters regarding local races? Quit focusing on the president. There are other guys.

Whoever makes/grades IQ tests would have a hell of a lot of power.

This.

You gotta live with the stupids and you have to vote with the stupids. Such is this great democracy.

Dictatorship anyone?

Those who do better than others should not receive any special treatment.


Huh? That already happens in your own proposition: Those who pass the test (aka "those who do better") get to vote and those who didn't pass the test (aka "others") do not.

Huh? That already happens in your own proposition: Those who pass the test (aka "those who do better") get to vote and those who didn't pass the test (aka "others") do not.

Sorry, I mean. You pass, you pass. You fail, you fail. If you get the highest possible score you get one vote, if you barely pass you get one vote. The test simply determines whether or not you are "qualified" to vote. That clearer?

I know what you think the test should be, that wasn't the problem. The problem is you somehow think that (i.e. pass or fail) isn't equivalent to "Those who do better than others should not receive any special treatment." when it definitely is.

The only difference is how many degrees of special treatment, but there is special treatment.

I know what you think the test should be, that wasn't the problem. The problem is you somehow think that (i.e. pass or fail) isn't equivalent to "Those who do better than others should not receive any special treatment." when it definitely is.

The only difference is how many degrees of special treatment, but there is special treatment.

Then yes, there is special treatment being awarded to people who pass the test.

1) IQ tests are not a true representation of intelligence, nor do they represent one's knowledge of political candidates or of the the U.S. government.

2) This is a representative democracy - IQ scores are irrelevant. Everyone has the right to vote.

3) IQ test are biased towards a certain demographic. The U.S. population is diverse.

4) Too much bureaucracy and cost to the tax payers.

5) Unconstitutional.

This pretty much covers it.

The scientific community really should take more responsibility for educating the simpleton masses on what exactly "IQ" is, and what such tests test. Maybe then I wouldn't have to hear morons talk about how people are superior because of their IQ score. :mad:

I know what you think the test should be, that wasn't the problem. The problem is you somehow think that (i.e. pass or fail) isn't equivalent to "Those who do better than others should not receive any special treatment." when it definitely is.

The only difference is how many degrees of special treatment, but there is special treatment.

Can you ever stop with your semantic faggotry?

Saying "those who do better than others receive special treatment" is not equivalent to "those who pass get special treatment, and those who fail do not". The first phrase could mean that someone with a 90 would get different treatment than someone who got an 80, and someone with an 80 would get different treatment than someone who got a 70. The second phrase means only people who do better than, say 50 will get special treatment. The first phrase encompasses the meaning of the 2nd phrase, but they are not "equivalent".

I disagree with Deliteful Despot, of course, but he was very specific in his statement. If you're going to get into yet another pointless semantic contest, at least know what the fuck you're talking about.

Can you ever stop with your semantic faggotry?

This isn't semantics. This is a fact.

To make a analogy it would be like him saying f(x) = 5 and then I pointing out how that is a linear equation of the form f(x) = mx + b with m = 0 and b = 5. It's not semantics, it's a factual statement. A factual statement that he already agreed with, making this post of yours not only wrong and stupid but also completely unimportant. Congratulations.


Saying "those who do better than others receive special treatment" is not equivalent to "those who pass get special treatment, and those who fail do not".


Learn to read. I already acknowledged, long before this useless post of yours, that in his scenario "someone with a 90 would get different treatment than someone who got an 80 and someone with an 80 would get different treatment than someone who got a 70".

The point I was making was that his proposal already has special treatment - the very thing he was complaining about. The only difference between his own proposal and the one he was complaining about would be that his has two different groups of treatment while the one he was complaining has 3 or more different groups of treatment. That's it.

Thus the underlying question being, and apparently this was way too difficult for you to understand, how could he complain about the other suggestion but not his? Why does having more than two degrees of treatment suddenly become wrong?

Then yes, there is special treatment being awarded to people who pass the test.

Great! Thank you.

Now how would your proposal be any fairer or just than his? Why would two different groups of treatment be okay, and not more?

I already acknowledged, long before this useless post of yours, that in his scenario "someone with a 90 would get different treatment than someone who got an 80 and someone with an 80 would get different treatment than someone who got a 70".



Nope.

That MIGHT be a result of such testing, but it's not what he said. He said "pass and you can vote, fail and you can't." If you want to call that "equivalent" to "people who score better will get better treatment", then they would have to have the exact same implications no matter which statement you use, and they don't.

You said something that was factual, sure. But it was not the same thing that the OP said.

Rust, so people that pass their driver's test get special treatment over those who fail, because the ones who pass can drive and the ones who fail can't? I can't think of anyone actually referring to that as "getting special treatment." Now if people who passed with higher scores could drive faster or something, that's giving special treatment above the law to those drivers but not to other drivers. Just as weighting a "more informed or smarter voter's" vote above someone else's would be giving them special treatment above the law (the law under Delightful Despot's idea).

Originally posted by Rust:
This isn't semantics.

Actually, it is. Because you know exactly what Delightful Despot meant, especially after he allowed for your idiotic correction. You recognize the difference in the two proposals, that he doesn't believe in giving weight to higher scoring voters. You know that he was protesting that all along. You only disagree with how he said it. This is pure semantics. The only way that it is not is if you suffer from a mental disability that would not allow you to recognize what Delightful Despot was correctly saying, in which case you can be excused for your error here.

Nope.

You're absolutely right... now. I made a mistake in that reply of mine (i.e. in what you just quoted). I said "his scenario" which is wrong because I was referring to the other guy (the one Deliteful Despot disagreed with). However everything else was entirely correct:


1. I didn't argue "semantics".

2. His scenario does have special treatment.

2. He already agreed with me.

3. The fact that his scenario has special treatment raises the fundamental question of why he would disagree with a proposal that has 3 different levels of treatment yet agree with his own proposal that has 2 levels.

So in short, the only thing you got correct was now, in this last reply of yours, because I made a mistake.

You're absolutely right... now.

3. The fact that his scenario has special treatment raises the fundamental question of why he would disagree with a proposal that has 3 different levels of treatment yet agree with his own proposal that has 2 levels.


Ok. 2 levels of treatment. You pass, you vote. You fail, too bad. You are getting awfully nit-picky. I understand what you're saying about those that pass getting special treatment compared to those that fail.
My rationale for this is simple. I would like to use some kind of test to gauge a voters "competence" so that they are voting at least somewhat responsibly.

Actually, it is. Because you know exactly what Delightful Despot meant, especially after he allowed for your idiotic correction.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Yes, I know what he meant... that's why I wasn't questioning what he meant. I didn't "disagree with the way he said things".

What I did was point out how the difference between his proposal and the one he was complaining was that his has two levels and the other one has three or more. He agreed.


You recognize the difference in the two proposals, that he doesn't believe in giving weight to higher scoring voters.

The only difference is one of the amount of levels of different treatments. My argument is to point that out to him - a point which he agreed with - and then ask why the hell would two levels be acceptable but not three?

Pointing out how the only difference between his proposal and the one he criticized is the amount of levels is not "semantics"; it's a very reasonable question.

You only disagree with how he said it. This is pure semantics.

Wrong. I disagree with him seeing a meaningful difference between two levels of treatment and three levels of treatment Not just any difference, but a difference that suddenly makes one unjust while the other remains perfectly just.


The only way that it is not is if you suffer from a mental disability that would not allow you to recognize what Delightful Despot was correctly saying, in which case you can be excused for your error here.

Or you're a moron who doesn't know what I was arguing and is misrepresenting my points. See above for the answer.

Wrong. I disagree with him seeing a meaningful difference between two levels of treatment and three levels of treatment Not just any difference, but a difference that suddenly makes one unjust while the other remains perfectly just.

No meaningful difference? I'm not saying that 3 levels is necessarily unjust, simply unnecessary. Since the point of the test is, as I have said several times before, to determine whether an individual should be permitted to vote. I don't know how you can't see any meaningful difference. Care to elaborate on "no difference?"

No meaningful difference? I'm not saying that 3 levels is necessarily unjust, simply unnecessary. Since the point of the test is, as I have said several times before, to determine whether an individual should be permitted to vote. I don't know how you can't see any meaningful difference. Care to elaborate on "no difference?"

Yes; no meaningful difference. That is, no difference that would justify your proposal being right and the other one being wrong.

Remember, you objected because you thought it was giving special treatment, not because it was "unnecessary". Your initial complaint contained absolutely no mention about it being unnecessary. This the first time you've even used the word in this whole thread.

Yes; no meaningful difference. That is, no difference that would justify your proposal being right and the other one being wrong.

Remember, you objected because you thought it was giving special treatment, not because it was "unnecessary". Your initial complaint contained absolutely no mention about it being unnecessary. This the first time you've even used the word in this whole thread.

Mkay, I think I see what your saying. I'm saying (clarifying) that it is unnecessary to weight the votes of those that perform highly on the test.

In my initial response to dal7timgar I clarified what where I was coming from and no saying that my idea was right or his was wrong.

I suppose I sort of walked into this, haha. I'm looking back now and after rereading what you said before, I realize that I disagree with what you are saying. I would say that people that pass the test are receiving special privileges as opposed to special treatment. Does that make sense?

I would say that people that pass the test are receiving special privileges as opposed to special treatment. Does that make sense?

No not really, he could say those whose vote weighs more are getting "special privileges" as well...

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that your own proposal can be seen in this manner:

Score A and your vote weighs x

Score B and your vote weighs y.

It's just that in your scenario A equals the passing score and x equals 1, and B would be the failing scores and y equals 0. In his scenario x and y could be different from 1 and 0 (e.g. they could be 1.25 and 0.25 or something like that).

With that being said...

Mkay, I think I see what your saying. I'm saying (clarifying) that it is unnecessary to weight the votes of those that perform highly on the test.

Well if you only meant to tell dal7timgar what your position was, and not to imply that his suggestion was unjust, then it seems there's nothing else to discuss. I'm sorry, it just seemed that you were calling his suggestion unjust or wrong with the "special treatment" comment.

No not really, he could say those whose vote weighs more are getting "special privileges" as well...

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that your own proposal can be seen in this manner:

Score A and your vote weighs x

Score B and your vote weighs y.

It's just that in your scenario A equals the passing score and x equals 1, and B would be the failing scores and y equals 0. In his scenario x and y could be different from 1 and 0 (e.g. they could be 1.25 and 0.25 or something like that).

With that being said...



Well if you only meant to tell dal7timgar what your position was, and not to imply that his suggestion was unjust, then it seems there's nothing else to discuss. I'm sorry, it just seemed that you were calling his suggestion unjust or wrong with the "special treatment" comment.

I understand the whole issue of the higher you score the more your vote is weighted. I don't know why you keep insisting that I said that dal7timgar's suggestion was unjust. I didn't, I clarified my point any implication you perceived was unintentional on my part.

Shall we drop this or do you wish to continue?

I didn't "insist" anything in my post. Read what I said again:

I'm sorry, it just seemed that you were calling his suggestion unjust or wrong with the "special treatment" comment.

I'm explaining to you why I made that connection initially; I'm not making it again in that post.


Shall we drop this or do you wish to continue?

The issue was already dropped! Did you even read my post?

"Well if you only meant to tell dal7timgar what your position was, and not to imply that his suggestion was unjust, then it seems there's nothing else to discuss."

Sorry to exasperate you, I read your post. I made a reply and was returning was unsure if you wanted reply and continue talking to a brick wall. Consider the whole thing dropped.

I am against the testing of IQ for those registered to vote simply because of the reasons you mentioned: that not only are some individuals not great test takers, but IQ tests aren't the greatest measure of knowledge.

A more appropriate solution should such a program ever be implemented would be for those about to vote to demonstrate a reasonable knowledge of their political system.

fuck yes, this ftw! the past election just made me reel with disgust how the presidential candidates could give their issues a backseat in order to work on their own image and attack the rival candidate(s), all to appeal to a wide range of people who give knowledge no value. this issue goes much deeper than this but ive gotta go.

Arrogant wankers. Lawl.

The higher your IQ, the more you are affected by the decisions made in a democracy, right?

id just like to throw the slippery slope issue into the thread.

:)

The higher your IQ, the more you are affected by the decisions made in a democracy, right?

Couldn't one argue the same for age?

Couldn't one argue the same for age?

Of course; that's why I do just that!

IQ tests in America is NOT fair.

It would end the republican party as we know it. They'd get 0% votes.

Might have something to do with there being an amendment in the constitution saying that we cannot do exactly that?

I think they should just teach politics in school, that would solve a lot of problems with voter stupidity.

1) IQ tests are not a true representation of intelligence, nor do they represent one's knowledge of political candidates or of the the U.S. government.

2) This is a representative democracy - IQ scores are irrelevant. Everyone has the right to vote.

3) IQ test are biased towards a certain demographic. The U.S. population is diverse.

4) Too much bureaucracy and cost to the tax payers.

5) Unconstitutional.

This man is correct. Also, almost this exact same thing has already happened in American History. In the South following the Civil War the powerful white politicians of the era instituted literacy tests knowing full well that while some whites would fail almost all blacks would fail as well thereby being barring the black population from voting.

So, nothing like IQ Tests for voting would ever be instated simply because of what's already happened in America's history.

Also, whoever said slippery slope was spot on.

IQ is bullshit. If you're Autistic or some other neurodiverse person you're fucked because IQs are designed for how NEUROTYPICAL brains work.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=28489

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118505591/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

You're not going to marginalize the neurodiverse

At the age of eighteen an IQ test with a minimum passing score of 90 ought to be administered. Anyone who fails to meet this standard should be compressed in to the Barringer crater for future oil reserves. That's optimal but unfortunately only a daydream.

Wondering what peoples' opinions were on instituting an IQ test for people who wish to register to vote. I know IQ tests aren't great measurements of intellect but it at least gives you a ballpark estimate of what a person is capable of. Of course some people have issues taking tests, this could be remedied with some other form of testing.

So what's your opinion on having to pass an IQ test before voting?

i think it is a dumb idea. IQ test are far to subjective. what i would do is one month prior to election everyone would have to take a test on current issues. just to make sure they have an idea who they are voting for an why. if you could not get at lest half the test correct then you will have to wait to vote till next time.

i think it is a dumb idea. IQ test are far to subjective. what i would do is one month prior to election everyone would have to take a test on current issues. just to make sure they have an idea who they are voting for an why. if you could not get at lest half the test correct then you will have to wait to vote till next time.

Because how much you're affected by the decisions made in a democracy is highly correlated to your passing this test, right?

I think It'd be great to prohibit stupid people from voting. However, there will still be smart ones who fall through the cracks and stupid ones who sneak through and find some way to vote, it's not really a viable idea.

I think It'd be great to prohibit stupid people from voting. However, there will still be smart ones who fall through the cracks and stupid ones who sneak through and find some way to vote, it's not really a viable idea.

Because how much you're affected by the decisions made in a democracy is highly correlated to your intelligence, right?

^ Says Who?

^ Says Who?

That was rhetorical.

1) IQ tests are not a true representation of intelligence, nor do they represent one's knowledge of political candidates or of the the U.S. government.

2) This is a representative democracy - IQ scores are irrelevant. Everyone has the right to vote.

3) IQ test are biased towards a certain demographic. The U.S. population is diverse.

4) Too much bureaucracy and cost to the tax payers.

5) Unconstitutional.

Well, uh... I guess we're done here now. Number 5 is the biggy. Any kind of test really opens the door for descrimination.

That was rhetorical.

Great; now please answer who says what you actually meant by your rhetorical question..

Great; now please answer who says what you actually meant by your rhetorical question..

The idea of democracy encourages a society where those who are most effected receive the most choice in a given situation.

IQ is bullshit. If you're Autistic or some other neurodiverse person you're fucked because IQs are designed for how NEUROTYPICAL brains work.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=28489

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118505591/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

You're not going to marginalize the neurodiverse

Is "neurodiverse" the new politically correct term for retarded?

The idea of democracy encourages a society where those who are most effected receive the most choice in a given situation.

Apparently not.

Apparently not.

The idea, not the practice.

Whose idea? Why should I think it comes from that which doesn't even practice it?

Whose idea? Why should I think it comes from that which doesn't even practice it?

It doesn't come from the government, it's just a concept.

just set up the voting ballots at the end of an obstacle course and or maze. it could be like the labyrinth with david bowie.

Wondering what peoples' opinions were on instituting an IQ test for people who wish to register to vote. I know IQ tests aren't great measurements of intellect but it at least gives you a ballpark estimate of what a person is capable of. Of course some people have issues taking tests, this could be remedied with some other form of testing.

So what's your opinion on having to pass an IQ test before voting?

This was widely done in the south to keep blacks who were not offered education from voting.

Plenty of evil pieces of shit know their multiplication tables.