By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Voting age should be raised and tied to income and intelligence

 

This plan is

good 21 11.48%
 
not good 152 83.06%
 
maybe, at least we should... 10 5.46%
 
Total:183
Rogerioandrade on 23 February 2017

Wow...
Age raised? Yep. At least 21 (in my country it´s 16.. and it´s compulsory. damn!)
Tied to income and "intelligence"....no, definetely no.



Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 23 February 2017
LivingMetal said:
The United States of America is NOT a democracy, it's a republic. Any of you misses that shouldn't be voting.

Yes, they're not a democracy, but they do claim to be one:

https://www.state.gov/j/drl/democ/



Valdath on 23 February 2017

The perfect way to start a civil war OP, good job.



Acevil on 23 February 2017

Why stop there, don't allow the elderly to vote either. Don't allow for religious group to vote, don't allow for color of skin to vote, and don't allow gender to vote. Lets make it is 1800s again. (I hope my obvious sarcasm is obvious).



 

Zkuq on 23 February 2017

No, just no. A lot of people are always going to be happy with what a government does, so the poll thing can't really help that much. In the end, this would just result in limiting voting rights. Now in theory I wouldn't mind restricting voting rights by IQ, but in practice, it could be abused and it would give the stupider people more reason for discontent and thus even societal unrest. Besides, IQ is a really horrible measure of intelligence. As for the income limit, that sounds like a bad joke. People in better economical situations haven't exactly demonstrated their ability to understand poorness, so this would essentially remove all potential for poor people to gain any actual influence. It too is a good idea in theory, but not viable in practice. As for age, it's a horrible measure anyway. Overall, this suggestion is very unjust.

If voting rights could be limited to well-informed, sufficiently smart people, and that could be done in a reliable fashion with no risk for abuse, I'd be all for it. But I don't think it's possible. As soon as you put any restrictions that can't be undeniably measured, you're bound to end up getting abuse cases sooner or later. An IQ test? The results are going to be faked sooner or later.



Around the Network
FentonCrackshell on 23 February 2017

What happens when a poor person with a $20,000/year income has a 160 IQ? Or an elderly millionaire is losing it a bit mentally? See, I'm fine with the age thing but all other sounds like we're weeding people out.



PC GAMING: BEST GAMES. WORST CONTROLS

A mouse & keyboard are made for sending email and typing internet badassery. Not for playing video games!!!

Normchacho on 23 February 2017
Acevil said:
Why stop there, don't allow the elderly to vote either. Don't allow for religious group to vote, don't allow for color of skin to vote, and don't allow gender to vote. Lets make it is 1800s again. (I hope my obvious sarcasm is obvious).

Why stop at voting? Let's just sterilize people based on their IQ. We'll increase the average intelligence by weeding out weak bloodlines.

 

Edit: Actually, I need to be careful joking about that around here. Someone might actually agree.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

fory77 on 23 February 2017

remove the income thingy (it's pure bullshit) and i can somewhat agree



Mnementh on 23 February 2017
Locknuts said:
Pemalite said:
No.

What happens if there is literally a decline in the available jobs? Why should those people loose their right to vote?

I.Q. Tests would be pointless, you can have the highest I.Q. in the world, but if you haven't studied up on a particular topic that a Politician is trying to sell... than you can literally be clueless about said topic.
Ergo. I.Q. Isn't going to be tied with better political representation.

Age? I have seen children act more responsible than 50 year olds.

Don't restrict democracy.

But a democracy only works with nations with an average IQ around 100. Much lower and corruption and tribalism completely take over.

Well, every nation has an average IQ around 100. Because the IQ is defined that way, that the average is 100. If the average gets more or less intelligent, it changes the questions in the IQ-test, so that after recalibration the average is around 100. So the average IQ never rises or decreases.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

VGPolyglot on 23 February 2017
Mar1217 said:
I definitely see your point of view. But you should remove the income thingy and replace the IQ test by an actual test about politics. What's the Right/Left ? What do they stand for ? Who's their chief ?, etc ...
But this kind of system still goes against what a democracy stands for.

That doesn't make sense. Who would the left be? The communists? The social democrats? Who would the right be? The free-market capitalists? The fascists? Which parties would be considered the left? The Democrats? The Greens? Which parties would be considered the right? The Republicans? The Libertarians? What about the leftists who oppose the Democrats and the Greens? What about those on the right who oppose both the Republicans and the Libertarians?