Should we have an IQ test for right to vote?

gmart74 said:

Just because someone has a PhD from MIT on astrophysics does not mean he is well-educated in politics, civics or politicians beliefs.

Also people with higher degrees have spent an inordinate amount of their lives in school systems which tend to promote a more liberal or democrat leaning environment. We are herd creatures, democrats tend to surround themselves with democrats, repubs with repubs, Muslims with Muslims etc etc. Schools have been enclaves for democrats for some time now. It is amazing how many college democrats become republicans once they get out and are not brainwashed by a daily barrage of left leaning rhetoric.

So this whole notion of democrats on average having higher degrees therefore they are smarter is actually just wrong. On top of that it is irrelevant to the political IQ of the voters.

Click to expand...

Got to tell you that a PHD doesn't mean much even in education. We've had them out here teaching and running our system and nothing has improved. In fact a PHD usually stays about a year in the classroom.

Tidewater said:

One data point hardly dispels what you refer to as "a myth."
If you notice, Obama lead McCain in almost every category.
...
Eliminating the bottom quintile of the electorate (in terms of education, IQ, knowledge of civics, economics or the candidates positions) would disproportionately reduce Democrat voting, which is why you would hear Democrats crying like rats eating onions if this were to be seriously proposed.

Click to expand...

My one data point trumps your empty talking points. And since this current election is the relevant object, backpedaling two decades is a fruitless maneuver. Surely you'd agree that both parties have changed considerably since then.

CrimsonCT said:

My one data point trumps your empty talking points. And since this current election is the relevant object, backpedaling two decades is a fruitless maneuver. Surely you'd agree that both parties have changed considerably since then.

Click to expand...

Yep, todays democrat party is becoming socialist and todays republican party has become yesterdays democrats.

Tidewater said:

Eliminating the bottom quintile of the electorate (in terms of education, IQ, knowledge of civics, economics or the candidates positions) would disproportionately reduce Democrat voting, which is why you would hear Democrats crying like rats eating onions if this were to be seriously proposed.

Click to expand...

So, I am to assume that, using this theory, all the rabid right-wingers who lack education, IQ, knowledge of civics, economics or the candidates' positions are going to get a pass? Which is the way it used to work when the poll tax, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and other measures were in effect.

It's On A Slab said:

So, I am to assume that, using this theory, all the rabid right-wingers who lack education, IQ, knowledge of civics, economics or the candidates' positions are going to get a pass? Which is the way it used to work when the poll tax, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and other measures were in effect.

Click to expand...

Now, now... the Republicans here only brought up the education issue in an effort to pat themselves on the back, and they're just mad it backfired.

Someone with a high IQ, such as myself, should get more than one vote.

I'd be perfectly happy if voters like this stayed home in droves.....

I present to you: Crazy Tracy

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4wQfQtpDAc"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

IQ test? No. However, if you are of working age and do not work or pay taxes, your vote should only count 25%.

Unless over 65 or MEDICALLY disabled, if you don't pay taxes, you're not investing in this country...

rolltidescott said:

IQ test? No. However, if you are of working age and do not work or pay taxes, your vote should only count 25%.

Click to expand...

Yay for disenfranchisement! But it's okay, college kids don't show up to vote anyway.

It's On A Slab said:

So, I am to assume that, using this theory, all the rabid right-wingers who lack education, IQ, knowledge of civics, economics or the candidates' positions are going to get a pass? Which is the way it used to work when the poll tax, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and other measures were in effect.

Click to expand...

Not at all. An objective test would simply discriminate against the uninformed, whoever that might be. If "right wingers" are uninformed, let them sit out elections until they become more informed.
I just am convinced that this would eliminate more Democrat voters than others.

CrimsonCT said:

My one data point trumps your empty talking points.

Click to expand...

Hardly. Let's look at your data.
1. The data presented are for registered voters, not likely voters. More people will tell a pollster that they will go to the polls than actually will. Thus using registered voters skews the data in favor of Democrats. Reputable pollsters (including Democrat pollsters) know this and thus use "likely voters" instead. Even in the Gallup Poll, the overall Obama-McCain margin using registered voters is 11 percentage points, but only 7 using likely voters. Likely vs. registered influences outcomes.
2. The election has yet to happen, the data represent projections, not outcomes. To get a feel for uneducated/uninformed voters and their propensity to vote one way or another, you'll have to wait for election day exit polling.
3. Even within the data provided, the Obama lead amongst "high school or less" is 8 points, "some college" is 5 points, college grad is 3, so the trend shows up even here: the less educated, the stronger the prefer for the Democrat, with the significant exception of "post-graduates." If Gallup were to break out MAs and PhDs, I would expect the trend to continue, MA holders would support the Republican more than college grads. PhDs would be the anomaly. Part of that is explained by the unintended effect of Vietnam era college draft exemptions. Don't want to serve in the military, stay in college. How to stay in college? Stay in grad school.

CrimsonCT said:

And since this current election is the relevant object, backpedaling two decades is a fruitless maneuver. Surely you'd agree that both parties have changed considerably since then.

Click to expand...

The topic of this thread is "Should we have an IQ test for right to vote?" This would apply not just this election, but future ones as well.

But more recent data are available.

UC Berkeley (you do trust Bezerkley, don't you?) compiled these data from the period 1997-2000.
........Lt HS..HS....Jr Col...BS/BA..Grad...Total
Dem..58.5...49.....47.6....42.9.....50......51
Ind...14.6...14.1...13.5....9.7......9.6.....13.3
Rep...27.....36.7...38.8....47.5....40.5....36

Table from Prof. David Bacon, University of Washington.
http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539

Once again, the more educated the voter, the more likely to vote Republican.
The MA/PhD data, once again, are not broken out separately.
Democrats overwhelmingly won high school drop outs. Won HS grads by a smaller margin, won Jr College grads by a still smaller margin, lost college grads 42.9-47.5, and won grad school grads 50-40.5.
This looks more like a "myth" confirmed than destroyed.

CrimsonCT said:

Now, now... the Republicans here only brought up the education issue in an effort to pat themselves on the back, and they're just mad it backfired.

Click to expand...

Keep dreaming, junior.

Does "CT" stand for Connecticut?

Tidewater said:

1. The data presented are for registered voters, not likely voters. More people will tell a pollster that they will go to the polls than actually will. Thus using registered voters skews the data in favor of Democrats. Reputable pollsters (including Democrat pollsters) know this and thus use "likely voters" instead. Even in the Gallup Poll, the overall Obama-McCain margin using registered voters is 11 percentage points, but only 7 using likely voters. Likely vs. registered influences outcomes.

Click to expand...

True, but that is the case in every pre-election poll. This is weak grounds for dismissal of the Gallup data, and appears as only an excuse for you to invoke older data and ignore the current disillusionment of many Republicans and Libertarians with the paths of their parties.

2. The election has yet to happen, the data represent projections, not outcomes. To get a feel for uneducated/uninformed voters and their propensity to vote one way or another, you'll have to wait for election day exit polling.

Click to expand...

This is a redundant point that adds little substance over the first one. (Although I realize that you enjoy seeing yourself type and hope to claim victory in every argument by invoking the wall of text.)

3. Even within the data provided, the Obama lead amongst "high school or less" is 8 points, "some college" is 5 points, college grad is 3, so the trend shows up even here: the less educated, the stronger the prefer for the Democrat, with the significant exception of "post-graduates." If Gallup were to break out MAs and PhDs, I would expect the trend to continue, MA holders would support the Republican more than college grads. PhDs would be the anomaly. Part of that is explained by the unintended effect of Vietnam era college draft exemptions. Don't want to serve in the military, stay in college. How to stay in college? Stay in grad school.

Click to expand...

Awesome. So since the postgraduates don't fit your worldview, you can toss them to the curb? How intellectually honest and markedly predictable of you. No, I don't really give a rat's ___ what you'd expect the results of a MA/PhD breakdown to say, since your bias is well-documented in this thread. But since we don't currently have a draft, and majority of those who move on to postgraduate degrees are actually smart, despite your protestations, this point is just a laughably transparent attempt to redefine the evidence against you. Well sorry, it doesn't hold water.

The topic of this thread is "Should we have an IQ test for right to vote?" This would apply not just this election, but future ones as well.

Click to expand...

So you admit that digging two decades in the past was a foolish red herring on your part? Good, that's progress.

UC Berkeley (you do trust Bezerkley, don't you?) compiled these data from the period 1997-2000.
........Lt HS..HS....Jr Col...BS/BA..Grad...Total
Dem..58.5...49.....47.6....42.9.....50......51
Ind...14.6...14.1...13.5....9.7......9.6.....13.3
Rep...27.....36.7...38.8....47.5....40.5....36

Table from Prof. David Bacon, University of Washington.
http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539

Click to expand...

How did you even assemble those numbers? Because they're all wrong. Even if you added up the strong/moderate/weak rows for all three classes (which would be misleading to begin with), you would not produce these results. I can only assume that your math skills are as lacking as your evidence.

Once again, the more educated the voter, the more likely to vote Republican.
The MA/PhD data, once again, are not broken out separately.
Democrats won high school drop outs 58.5-25.7. Won HS grads 47.6-36.8, won Jr College grads 49.1-35.4, lost college grads 42.9-46, and won grad school grads 50-38.4.

Click to expand...

I've corrected your numbers. So to phrase another way, democrats only lost one category, and barely past the presumed 3% margin of error. How convincing. Oh and by the way, even if you eliminate high school dropouts, Democrats still hold the lead with a 48-37.6 total advantage. Take out high school graduates and the trend continues.

This looks more like a "myth" confirmed than destroyed.

Click to expand...

Your analytical skills concern me.

And yes, CT does stand for Connecticut.

I believe that only happy, well-meaning, people of mirth should be allowed to vote.

None of those nay-sayers, nanny-boos, nattering nabobs of negativism.

Smiling people of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your gosh darn negativism!

Tidewater said:

UC Berkeley (you do trust Bezerkley, don't you?) compiled these data from the period 1997-2000.

Click to expand...

And one final falsehood: the period was from 1972-2000. But surely the parties remained stagnant enough over that three-decade period to give these results some sort of meaning, right? Surely they haven't changed their views and methodologies at all over such a lengthy span, rendering this study useless?

I expected better.