Should we have an IQ test for right to vote?

bamahuey1 · Oct 17, 2008

Tidewater said:
I believe you are mistaking the cause for the effect. Dumb down the electorate, and you have to dumb down the candidates through a process of political Darwinism. If an honest conscientious candidate is presenting well-reasoned honest positions to this electorate, they look at him like a hog looking at a wrist-watch. Meanwhile his opponent says, "I'll make you happy. I will give you bread and circuses." The electorate examine the two, and elect the latter. Politicians learn from this, that being honest with the electorate means defeat, while giving them outrageous fantasies wins.

Excellent post! People claim they want honesty and real solutions, but the fact remains that most do not! A lot of people seem to have the mentality that I want my money...I want it now...and don't tell me I can't have it! Most people will choose style over substance every single time...especially in a Presidential election!

gmart74 · Oct 17, 2008

Tidewater said:
If an honest conscientious candidate is presenting well-reasoned honest positions to this electorate, they look at him like a hog looking at a wrist-watch. Meanwhile his opponent says, "I'll make you happy. I will give you bread and circuses." The electorate examine the two, and elect the latter.

Often times we make arguments based on hypothetical situations without any factual evidence. However your argument has been proved in this past election by the treatment of Ron Paul. He was marginalized and portrayed as a fringe clown precisely bc of his honesty.

I'm not exactly thinking about an IQ test, but how about an informed electorate test. Give every person a 20 question very basic test. If they pass by 75% they get to vote. I just can't believe that we are a better country for having the laziest, most uninformed people weigh in on the direction of this country.

Ldlane · Oct 17, 2008

I think first we should have an IQ test for those running for office. :biggrin:

derek4tide · Oct 17, 2008

First, it's republicans shouting "kill him" and "cut his head off". Now, we have people openly discussing the merits of Jim Crow laws. Sad, very sad.

crimson_blood · Oct 17, 2008

deliveryman35 said:
Just don't let convicted felons and illegal immigrants vote and I would be happy...but we can't even do that.

Don't forget Disney characters and people who don't even exist.

gmart74 · Oct 17, 2008

secret service has reviewed the tapes and said the person yelled "tell him." however, way to repeat what the liberal media loves to brainwash everyone with.

Jim Crow laws were set up to deny the voting rights for blacks. This is a discussion about votings rights of morons. please dont try to obscure a legitimate discussion with your ingrained guilt of all things black.

BamaToTheEnd · Oct 17, 2008

I would be against this idea for the simple fact of I think it takes away from a person's rights a bit.

Tidewater · Oct 17, 2008

derek4tide said:
First, it's republicans shouting "kill him" and "cut his head off". Now, we have people openly discussing the merits of Jim Crow laws. Sad, very sad.

You have jumped to the conclusion that eliminating illiterate or uninformed voters would eliminate black voting. Your statement only makes sense if you believe African-Americans are inherently inferior.
You, sir, are a racist.

92tide · Oct 17, 2008

gmart74 said:
secret service has reviewed the tapes and said the person yelled "tell him." however, way to repeat what the liberal media loves to brainwash everyone with.

"no sir they weren't booing, they were yelling boo-urns, boo-urns"

92tide · Oct 17, 2008

Tidewater said:
You have jumped to the conclusion that eliminating illiterate or uninformed voters would eliminate black voting.
You, sir, are a racist.

*dele*

gmart74 · Oct 17, 2008

i have never said eliminating morons would eliminate only blacks from the voter roles and i am very careful in what i write precisely so i do not have my opinions morphed into some racist bs. i understand the wink 92tide but being called a racist isn't something i find humorous.

i could care less which party loses more votes. what i do care about is that my rights and enjoyment of life is not curtailed by the dumbest among us. i have never understood how or why anyone would want an uninformed voter making choices that could affect your life.

RhodeIslandRed · Oct 17, 2008

bamahuey1 said:
... People claim they want honesty and real solutions, but the fact remains that most do not! A lot of people seem to have the mentality that I want my money...I want it now...and don't tell me I can't have it! Most people will choose style over substance every single time...especially in a Presidential election!

I am of the opinion that the stances we take on certain political issues and how our gov't behaves on others is due to much lack of transparency that pervades the gov't. Too many things 'behind the screen' and 'what they don't want us to know' have a lot to do with manipulating the voters' decisions -- including highly intelligent ones.

Mamacalled · Oct 17, 2008

derek4tide said:
First, it's republicans shouting "kill him" and "cut his head off". Now, we have people openly discussing the merits of Jim Crow laws. Sad, very sad.

Obviously you have overlooked the fact that this really did not happen but was made up. See the thread regarding this.

92tide · Oct 17, 2008

gmart74 said:
i have never said eliminating morons would eliminate only blacks from the voter roles and i am very careful in what i write precisely so i do not have my opinions morphed into some racist bs. i understand the wink 92tide but being called a racist isn't something i find humorous.

i could care less which party loses more votes. what i do care about is that my rights and enjoyment of life is not curtailed by the dumbest among us. i have never understood how or why anyone would want an uninformed voter making choices that could affect your life.

my apologies gmart, i was not intending to call you a racist. i was trying to parse tidewater's statement in my normal smart alecky way but i can see how this could come across wrong. again, my apologies.

gmart74 · Oct 17, 2008

no worries. so how can we improve the sophistication of the electorate? we keep having more corruption in gov and less accountability. i truly believe it is bc we, as voter's are too ignorant for our own good. I don't know how to motivate people to care more about an election so the only alternative i see is to weed out the ones who refuse to educate themselves about the candidates. Does anyone else have alternate ideas that might work?

92tide · Oct 17, 2008

gmart74 said:
no worries. so how can we improve the sophistication of the electorate? we keep having more corruption in gov and less accountability. i truly believe it is bc we, as voter's are too ignorant for our own good. I don't know how to motivate people to care more about an election so the only alternative i see is to weed out the ones who refuse to educate themselves about the candidates. Does anyone else have alternate ideas that might work?

i don't have an answer. i think a large majority of our citizenry is woefully undereducated (it seems to me that the possession of the ability for critical thought is in no way related to ones ability to survive), but i don't know that this is really any different than in the past. i also don't know if our government/elected officials are any better or worse than in the past.

for some reason, crap sells, so the "vote for me and ill make sure you get something in return" meme rises to the top. what caused us to get there is sort of a chicken and egg type of thing.

AlistarWills · Oct 17, 2008

gmart74 said:
no worries. so how can we improve the sophistication of the electorate? we keep having more corruption in gov and less accountability. i truly believe it is bc we, as voter's are too ignorant for our own good. I don't know how to motivate people to care more about an election so the only alternative i see is to weed out the ones who refuse to educate themselves about the candidates. Does anyone else have alternate ideas that might work?

Regular Joe's out there need to run for office. Which seems difficult with the monetary landscape of today's political world. It's the regular Joe's who are in touch with the voters that need to be in office, not the sleazy, slimy people we have running for every office in the land.
Here's you a thought to ponder, why spend millions on campaigns, for a job that pays around $80,000/year? (this is not an original thought, but one given to me, I have not check the compensation, that may be for a House or Senate seat.)

awesomeman27 · Oct 18, 2008

I think the voting process should have issues on it, instead of names. It will require the people who don't know anything about the candidate to have to pick an issue instead of a name or party.I thought of this while talking to a staunch Republican and McCain supporter. I described view points about McCain and they disagreed with them. Then, I described view points of Obama and they agreed with them. When they I told them and proved their lack of knowledge about the candidates, and how they vote for a party because my "daddy did". They weren't too happy.

Mamacalled · Oct 18, 2008

awesomeman27 said:
I think the voting process should have issues on it, instead of names. It will require the people who don't know anything about the candidate to have to pick an issue instead of a name or party.I thought of this while talking to a staunch Republican and McCain supporter. I described view points about McCain and they disagreed with them. Then, I described view points of Obama and they agreed with them. When they I told them and proved their lack of knowledge about the candidates, and how they vote for a party because my "daddy did". They weren't too happy.

Did you listen to the link that I provided? It is where Sal goes to Harlem and ask people who they were voting for. They said Obama. Then he ask them which of Obama's policies did they agree with most. The problem is that he listed McCain's policies like continueing the effort in Iraq and they would say that they definitely supported staying in Iraq. He would then ask if they supported Obama's pick for his runnning mate, Sarah Palin and they would say definitely and that she would do a good job.

Bodhisattva · Oct 18, 2008

92tide said:
and just curious, who would be responsible for setting the IQ level and how would they arrive at that conclusion.

Theoretically, the IQ level would be arbitrarily set by government bureaucrats, just like every government policy is arbitrarily set by government bureaucrats.

If you don't like the former, do you like the latter?

Should we have an IQ test for right to vote?

1st Team

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-American

Hall of Fame

BamaNation Citizen

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

All-SEC

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

All-American

Scout Team

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!