Having a meritocratic political system would be a disaster in a capitalist economy. If, as someone suggested, an idiot's vote weighed 0.5 and a genius' vote weighed 1.25, the geniuses would vote based off of their own self interest, that is, they would vote to lower taxes (on themselves), decrease educational funding (they've already got an education, keeping the system would mean more competition for them later on), and probably even further skew the voting system.

In short, if political power is based solely off of merit, those with merit will control the means of obtaining merit (in this case, a formal education) to keep themselves in power.

No matter how much the Teapartiers, Republicans, and conservatves in general (including conservative democrats) make us puke, we must not deny them the right to vote. Unless, of course, we deny everyone else the right to vote and make America a dictatorship, which would also be bad.

I would have to say that it would be too difficult and too constitution breaking to hinder anyone's, that is a U.S. citizen, ability to vote. The whole idea of having the right to vote is to distribute the decision making throughout all people in the nation, because all the people are people. Our government is set up for opposing parties to argue with one another, and it is near impossible for individuals to be able to tilt voting turnouts in their favor based purely on social status or wealth, since a vote is a vote no matter who it comes from. This makes it hard to make such drastic changes, and I don't think peoples' votes will be messed with for a very long time.

So, instead of trying to infringe upon the rights of U.S. citizens, it might be interesting to change the definition of a U.S. citizen. How about to become a citizen, you must pass some sort of intelligence test, or interview, or something of that sort. This way, many problems that arise from idiots making idiotic decisions could possibly be nullified.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 5 2010, 10:20 pm by CecilSunkure. Reason: Clarified vague point.

The problem is that requiring that people not be idiots to vote is that the people already in charge decide who's an "idiot" and who isn't. If, say, this law was enacted during the Bush Regime, we would have started seeing religious and political discrimination: "Don't believe in Jesus? IDIOT! Don't believe in the free market? IDIOT! Don't approve of the War on Terror? IDIOT!"
And no matter what party is in power if we enact this law, we'd certainly start seeing even more discrimination against communists, socialists, and anarchists.

The "IDIOT" label is too vague. It can mean anything, and in most contexes, it means "person who disagrees with me."

The free market (owning, buying, selling freely), freedom of ideas (even bad ones), freedom of speech, freedom to Vote. All of these must be maintained to preserve happiness. "Free" does not necessarily mean "Set loose", it is not a bad or dangerous thing.

The only way to ensure the right to vote is to allow everyone the right to vote. Once exceptions are made to a rule, it opens the way for more exceptions (call this the slippery slope fallacy if you will, but you must admit that a rule with some exceptions will develop more exceptions than a steadfast rule with no exceptions). Then begins the dilemma of who creates the exceptions to the rule. Who decides who is not qualified to vote? One may suggest an objective test to determine who is allowed to vote. But, the question arises: what sort of objective questions can one put? We can most likely agree on the Area of Knowledge known as Mathematics, or the Way of Knowledge known as reasoning -- but these measure a completely different set of knowledge than is needed for making decisions concerning government. Perhaps History? The Human or Social Sciences? How can one objectively measure one's intelligence in these aspects?

Of course, the best solution is our original system: everyone gets the right to vote -- you, the 'redneck', or even the person who votes at random.

I'm not saying that leaders should be placed according to intelligence, but rather voters.




I'm not saying people who don't have an education shouldn't vote, I'm saying perhaps people who don't understand the issues shouldn't vote. The voting test would be over the BASIC POLICIES of the candidates. Anyone can go to the library, read a newspaper, or watch a TV news program (however biased the source may be) and be able to comprehend what the policies of a candidate is. The African Americans and Obama thing was an example of people choosing a leader based on physical appearance rather than viewpoints. It's similar to an Asian running for president and having a majority of Asian Americans vote for that candidate based on his race, rather than his policies. And as for "informed" people (a better term in this situation rather than "intelligent"), in theory they'd choose a leader that would best benefit all. But there are always going to be some people that are selfish in all classes. Humans are imperfect, therefore any human institution will be imperfect.


Wait a second, isn't this almost the same thing as denying voting rights to people who are qualified but letting the people who are still ignorant/misinformed (a better term for "stupid" people or "idiots") vote and be citizens (*cough cough* Literacy Test)? By having to pass an intelligence test to become a citizen, you're allowing the current ignorant citizens to not change. And as you said, you wouldn't "infringe upon the rights of a [current] US citizen." Grandfather clauses are just another way for conservatives to dodge change.

It's impractical to change it, yes, unless a violent rebellion breaks out. So the question becomes, "WOULD it be better if ignorant/misinformed could not vote?"

EDIT:
The problem is, what if the universal right to vote ISN'T the best method? In theory, yes, but in reality, there are ignorant people who don't understand the issues. They listen to empty promises and believe liars' words like they're gold. If you watched the first video posted above, the theory of the philosophy of liberty sounds plausible. But then there are people who are "intellectual sloths" who allow the government to take control of themselves by not thinking for themselves. It's such as shame that the hypothetical philosopher-kings are so hard to come by these days...

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 7 2010, 2:22 am by rayNimagi.

Testing over anything isn't going to be objective -- even basic politics. What one person may consider basic, another may not have noticed. One could say: "What party is Presidential Candidate Barack Obama?" However, what if a person doesn't care for party politics? Or what if the person is voting for an independent? Should everyone get the same test depending on what party they are voting for? We can't do that, that would mean we would know who they voted for, and votes are supposed to be confidential.

But, let's get away from the testing idea. I want to discuss why its wrong for people to vote without basing their vote on the issues. Who are you to say that people cannot vote a particular way for a particular reason? Just as you might base your vote because of economic policies, another might base their vote based on race. I'm not saying its right, but who's right is it to discredit their vote?


I'm sure you meant something else by this but, the current system does let ignorant people the ability to vote, so technically, the system would be the same (not better or worse).

All people are protected under the U.S. Constitution, whether they are U.S. citizens or not. Sorry, that's not what you were talking about. Yes, the right to vote is a U.S. citizen right.

There will always be people like that, no matter what system of government is in place.

@rayNimagi
I didn't understand a word that you said, but- I got one thing out of all the mess.
I think, the ultimate ignorance is to call the mob around you, 'ignorant'- thus putting you in the hall of fame for hypocrites in the history of mankind. It is the ultimate way of being 'full of yourself', and being arrogant. Why do you think, you are not part of that mob you're talking about? You seem gravely misinformed on this part.

Are you seriously that smart? Are you part of the 0.1% in the States that get into the most prestigious universities? I don't think anyone that smart would be stupid enough to call the people around them idiots.

Aside from the fact that your way of discriminating people would never work, if it came to meritocracy, then meritocratic power will only be given to those top 0.1% individuals, because that would just be more practical. Instead of making a new system, which will only be as inefficient as the old democracy, it would be better to leave it to the good hands of the more educated people. And the people below these 'top individuals' would have no say in the matter, because they're so obviously inferior in their cognitive abilities- at least, according to your theory.

It doesn't take a genious to determine when someone else is ignorant or uninformed on a particular issue, nor does admission to a prestigious university necessarily imply cognitive powers. And calling people around you idiots is a matter of word choice, not a matter of intelligence.

To respond to your opening question, I'd say yes.

To start the analysis, I would begin with the roots of society. Society consists of a collection of individuals. Naturally they need to decide upon what things need doing and who will do them, so voting was born. Elected officials are given power so that we don't have to do everything ourselves, and presumably everyone benefits from the specialization and division of labor principles. At its very fundamental level, the "one person one vote" idea says that each person in the society has an equal weight and value to the society, in terms of the "direction" of the society, or in deciding what is beneficial to the society. Do we want socialism, or capitalism? Do we want nuclear energy, or solar energy? Do we want red balloons or blue balloons on july 4th? Those sorts of issues. Then everyone votes for the candidate who supports their position. However, their vote says nothing about how capable the voter is of enacting any of what they want done, it really only expresses what that person wants. To deny some people the vote would be the social equivelent of saying "what you want is not important" for whatever reason, whether it be intelligence or race or anything else. In this fundamental layer, the question becomes "are some citizens worth more than others?" But how exactly does one determine the worth of an individual to a particular society? Well, first you need to examine what the society wants. If hardworking industrial intelligent people are what the society wants, then they are worth more to the society than a lazy bum. If the society consists entirely of "stupid people" "rednecks" "idiots in class" and such, then a class clown might be worth more to that society than a hardworking student. If you remove any pre concieved notions about the direction that a society should take (i.e. that people should help each other, be courteous, ect), then the only determining factor in the worth of an individual to society is what the society decides upon, and it is right to let all citizens vote because they all have equal weight. Imagine yourself to be on a distant world with an alien society that values dropping their women into volcanoes to please their gods. In our eyes, that's detrimental to their society, but thats because we have these values instilled in us already that we have a difficult time recognizing and thinking without.

If we take into consideration the unavoidable external influences on society, things change a bit. To survive as a society, we require a number of physical things: food, water, shelter, clothing, ect, so part of the "direction" of our society is predetermined (assuming the society wishes to survive, if not then this paragraph is irrelevant and you can revert to the above paragraph.) We must obtain food, water, ect, to survive, so those individuals best suited to obtaining/growing/creating these sorts of things are already worth more than others to the society. Hardworking people are more productive, intelligent people can increase efficiency and design better methods of production, ect, so in terms of worth they are simply more valuable than a lazy bum or a redneck who sits on his front porch shooting squirrels. Great warriors were valuable to the indian tribes due to the wars they had, shamen are valuable to african tribes for their wisdom, blacksmiths were valuable in the middle ages, ect. So if we examine what the society wants again, this time is has to be tempered by how to obtain it and what effect it will have on the survival of the society. The greeks destroyed themselves with a vote for war, because they didn't realize or couldn't predict the effect it would have on their survival. In this case, I would say the intelligent/informed should have more weight than the uninformed or ignorant in the running of the society. I would give them the power to say "no" to a vote perhaps.

In either case though, what is it in the universe that says developing nuclear technology is more important than sitting on your front porch shooting squirrels? Society, of course. And when it comes to the society I want, I'd like the redneck to enjoy sitting there shooting squirrels as long as it doesn't hurt me, even if I'd prefer to develop nuclear power. So I think everyone should have a vote. Of course, it still would be nice if people would take the time to inform themselves on certain issues.

I recognized the misuse of the terms I wrote in my original post and had changed them in the one quoted. The post was a bit messy, I'll admit, but that doesn't justify ground for a personal attack. If you've read through my other posts in the topic, you would realize I'm not a US citizen. Thus I would not receive the right to vote whether this hypothetical test is ever implemented or not.


Let me make this clearer so that you may become a more informed person:

• The hypothetical test would cover every candidate on the ballot, not just the one the voter selects.
  
• The hypothetical test would be administered during the registration period and would be required for voting registration. This would take place BEFORE the voting day.
  
• The test would NOT be structured so that only the top 0.1% of the population would be able to vote. That's not democracy. That's called oligarchy.
  

@Vrael
Because society does not agree with itself 100% of the time, the nation ends up with decisions only half the people approve of.

Other people believe some lives are worth more than others. Some people believe it is right to take one life to save two or more. An extension of this would be "it's alright to remove the rights of one person in order to preserve the rights of two or more."

@rayNimagi, I apologize for some offenses that you may have taken- however, it is a good way of critically thinking about your position before you make such suggestions. Do you have strong evidence that you are not part of this 'misinformed' group?
I do admit, I do not like the ignorant, rather than the misinformed. However, being ignorant of politics is not a crime. And I've taken no worry about this fact because our society does not forgive ignorance when ignorance causes a bad outcome. And for every bad outcome, consequence.

Also, thank you for informing me of your simple hypothesis. Usually, in the common sense- Democracy includes equity and freedom. And what I've said is no democracy, I'd like to inform you that it was meritocracy. I'd also like to inform you that what I've proposed isn't oligarchy at all- since it still would give people an equal chance at gaining power (which is debatable, but still, theoretically yes.)
Also, according to you, this 'discriminating' democracy seems half-ass'd from many perspectives. It also seems more like 'sacrificing a thousand to save one' to me. And it probably has many technical and controversial problems that we, as humans will never be able to solve. So, why not do it more efficiently, rather than doing it horrendously inefficiently?

Also, If I'm understanding you correctly, 'for greater good' is a false logic well manipulated by the fascist and the Nazi regime. And because of the fact that these kind of systems are abused quite easily, then (using your last statement, that humans are imperfect) the most logical system would be to use a system that has the most resistance to abuse, thus most resistance to imperfection. Democracy by far served more justice then the past 'discriminating' systems.

Responding to this post only.

I wanted to point out that your argument fails to look at the bigger picture. All governments are not about high-flown philosophies, truths, morales, human rights or justice. Don't try to create philosophical arguments about how it is not right to forbid certain individuals to vote because they'll all be voting for a force that will judge other people, have the right to destroy lives, value finance and power over human life and morales, etc. Governments represent only social practicality and human nature. It is socially practical to restrict the voting rights of people with low IQs and the politically illitirate just like it is socially practical to put violent individuals in jail (which is what the government is doing), restrict the right to drive a car if you don't know the rules and don't have the basic experience of doing so, restrict the right to own weapons if you have previos convictions, etc...

I am not a US citizen and am not able to vote. Whether I am or am not should not be a problem-- If the "greater good" demands an individual give up a little liberty to gain a little security, it isn't always a terrible thing. Americans are extremely individualistic compared to other cultures-- this is why the hypothetical test could never be put into practice (in America).

From what I understand of my hypothetical plan is that a) the majority of current voters are not ignorant or misinformed b) everyone (in theory) would benefit from the selection of the most capable leader rather than the one with just the best physical appearance (or whatever factor was irrelevant to the ability to wield power).

What good would this do if it was put in practice? When majority of voters are not ignorant, and misinformed- and would only serve as a good tool to abuse? Do you know what this means? Probably not, because you've completely ignored it from the last post.
Also another, some factual disputes. Do you mean that aside from America, other countries can implement your obviously discriminating idea, and obviously 'for abuse policy' into practice? I don't think so.
And lastly, we don't vote by our insight to one's capability. If we only knew that Bush would fuck the United States up so much, then we all obviously would have voted for Al Gore. But we didn't, we haven't, and it was impossible to know at that time. One can never know the politician's true capability until we have lived it. And until then, we vote by how we agree or disagree upon one's policies, one's speech, and one's persuasiveness (which also somewhat falls into the category of good lookingness.) So in the end, your test is flawed from the beginning.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 12 2010, 2:54 pm by CecilSunkure. Reason: Removed unnecessary sentence.

ad hominem fallacy. His ability to get into a prestigious university has nothing to with this topic.


I really would like to see how you got to the "majority of voters are not ignorant"
Because in the United States, educational attainment for a bachelor's degree or higher is only at 27.5% and high school graduate is only at 84.5%. So statistically speaking, I think there is a wide margin of ignorant voters that are high school dropouts who never did some college. Which is why I think just improving the education system would change things in the world of politics.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p20-560.pdf
(the PDF may take some time to load)

Read the entire section. You may notice, I've been told on 'that' one- it seems you've missed it completely. However, it does make him a hypocrite when he calls the people around them 'idiots'.You should read the entire section, not bits of it. Nobody is disagreeing with the fact that the education should change. What I'm disagreeing with is against a proposal of a broken system.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 14 2010, 1:46 am by CecilSunkure. Reason: Not nice.

Ah, I myself was misinformed. But unlike most Americans, I am willing to change my views in light of new information, unlike a majority of voters. It's the undecided minority that often determines who gets elected (as opposed to the unchanging majority who already know who they're going to vote for before the major campaigns begin).
This could be interpreted in a few ways: do you believe that the hypothetical system is flawed, or the current one?

In either case, see Jonathan Dine, Candidate for US SenatorHeh, even politicians are wanting for voters to be more informed. Even http://www.google.com/search?q=washington is broken&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a">73% of Americans think that Washington is broken. Perhaps if the people in power were better-chosen, party conflicts wouldn't be a problem...

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 14 2010, 2:34 am by CecilSunkure. Reason: Lets not be childish now.