IQ test before voting..to save our future

macbrada

Should people be given an I.Q test before they can vote. Only those getting a result of 100 or over are permitted to vote! This would surely lead to a more informed and obviously a more intelligent choice of new leaders?

nesf

IQ isn't a measure of sense or being informed.

danbohan

macbrada wrote: »

Should people be given an I.Q test before they can vote. Only those getting a result of 100 or over are permitted to vote! This would surely lead to a more informed and obviously a more intelligent choice of new leaders?

of course it would great idea , hopefully you fall into that category and not be denying yourself a vote now ?

wee truck big driver

danbohan wrote: »

of course it would great idea , hopefully you fall into that category and not be denying yourself a vote now ?

obviously we should apply that to the politicans talk about halving the number of t.ds in the dail

macbrada

nesf wrote: »

IQ isn't a measure of sense or being informed.

I agree with you but it is a measure of ability to take information and make a logical decision....I.e a person of even average IQ is not likely to cast a vote based on how pretty/handsome a candidate may be or based on a publicity stunt!

Also, this would ensure a higher probability that people will make there own decision rather than be influenced by the promise of a pint or just voting for a party cos the family has done for generations........

If they cannot make their own decision, they will not pass test and ergo....not get a vote!

RandolphEsq

Why bother with an IQ test, just abolish democracy. It is far easier. There can be a subtle way of fading out democracy through delegation of power.

Killer Pigeon

You should only be allowed to become a T.D. if you're eligible to become a member of Mensa.

PandyAndy

What's your IQ, macbrada?

Crasp

far too many well educated people voted ff

macbrada

PandyAndy wrote: »

What's your IQ, macbrada?

High enough to know a diversionary comment........lol

As for removing democracy, that's not the case..

I'm sure many of those with a lower IQ would prefer the brightest in our land to make important decisions in the same manner one would choose a surgeon to operate on you rather than a baker or accountant!

The latest polls suggest a school teacher leads us out of this fiscal nightmare!!!! This proves that a majority decision is not necessarily a good one.


Education is not a measure of IQ and so this would not rule out those that could not be educated to a higher level...

macbrada

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Why bother with an IQ test, just abolish democracy. It is far easier. There can be a subtle way of fading out democracy through delegation of power.

A bit of an over reaction I believe..

Would you have said the same many years ago, when women were identified as witches after the democratic vote by the villagers that a women is defo a witch if she sinks when thrown in the lake weighed down by stones......

I believe a high percentage of Irish people are intelligent. Therefore, democratic rights would always be protected.

Ridiculous idea

Focalbhach

macbrada wrote: »

I.e a person of even average IQ is not likely to cast a vote based on how pretty/handsome a candidate may be or based on a publicity stunt!

Unlike the average existing voter... of average IQ... yes?

Sierra Oscar

Lets just do away with democracy altogether . . .

Buceph

I say anyone with an IQ over 101 shouldn't be allowed to vote. They're far too smart for their own good and just try and confuse the ordinary man.

Victor

I'm not sure what the distribution of IQ is, but potentially you exclude 50% of the population - the ones that aren't good at IQ tests, not the ones that 'should' have their opinions discounted.

macbrada

Leto wrote: »

Unlike the average existing voter... of average IQ... yes?

I think the average IQ among voters is quite low. That's the problem....

The election would also cost a lot less as vast areas of Dublin would not require polling booths!

Focalbhach

macbrada wrote: »

I think the average IQ among voters is quite low. That's the problem....

The average IQ is, by definition, average. Not low, not high.

Victor wrote: »

I'm not sure what the distribution of IQ is, but potentially you exclude 50% of the population - the ones that aren't good at IQ tests, not the ones that 'should' have their opinions discounted.

Theoretically, the distribution of IQ scores - measuring whatever IQ tests measure - follows the normal curve. That is, 68% of the population lie within one standard deviation of the mean (in the range 85-115), 95% within two standard deviations (in the range 70-130), and 99.8% within three SDs (in the range 55-145).

the groutch

macbrada wrote: »

Should people be given an I.Q test before they can vote. Only those getting a result of 100 or over are permitted to vote! This would surely lead to a more informed and obviously a more intelligent choice of new leaders?

certain contituencies might not have anyone eligible to vote then

partyatmygaff

macbrada wrote: »

Should people be given an I.Q test before they can vote. Only those getting a result of 100 or over are permitted to vote! This would surely lead to a more informed and obviously a more intelligent choice of new leaders?

Democracy gives a vote to everyone. Not only you and whoever else you deem to be "intelligent enough" to vote.

thetonynator

the groutch wrote: »

certain contituencies might not have anyone eligible to vote then

IQ Measures intelligence, not social status, or which side of the liffey you're on. Being from a dodgy area doesn't reduce your intelligence, although it may decrease your chances of a decent education.

Sir Oxman

macbrada wrote: »

I think the average IQ among voters is quite low. That's the problem....

The election would also cost a lot less as vast areas of Dublin would not require polling booths!

Booooo!

RandolphEsq

macbrada wrote: »

A bit of an over reaction I believe..

Would you have said the same many years ago, when women were identified as witches after the democratic vote by the villagers that a women is defo a witch if she sinks when thrown in the lake weighed down by stones.....

I would imagine I would have been in favour of it even more back then; left to their own devices look what happened to all those women!

WhosUpDocs

macbrada wrote: »

I think the average IQ among voters is quite low. That's the problem....

The election would also cost a lot less as vast areas of Dublin would not require polling booths!

So you're basically proposing establishing an elite group of "informed and intelligent" people and not giving the "stupid" a vote.

Jump back 100 years, replace "informed and intelligent" for white and male and replace "stupid" for black or female. I mean you can't be serious?!

Imma stop feeding the trolls now

Topper Harley01

As someone already pointed out, IQ =/= common sense.

In my opinion, an educated idiot is far more dangerous than a non-educated lay person.

Morzadec

Not sure about an IQ test but I do have major doubts about the merits of democracy and I would support some sort of change... Particularly in Ireland where it seems a large portion of the population vote for a party based on their allegiance to a Treaty/Civil War that no longer bears any relevance.

I would be in favour of every member of the public having to take some sort of basic exam before voting in relation to their knowledge of politics (like a CSPE junior cert exam or something, nothing that you have to be a genius to pass, but just enough to show you are somewhat informed).

This way uninformed voters will be prevented from voting thus preventing the situation we had with the first Lisbon vote where most voters who voted 'no' did so because they 'didn't know what they were voting for' (:rolleyes: if you don't know what you are voting for then your best course of action is to not vote at all, voting no is as harmful to democracy and the country as voting yes if you are uninformed! Surely anyone with any logic can see this...) or because they were misinformed (abortion,conscription etc...)

Democracy only works if people make informed, independent decisions that are best for the whole country and not just a locality, and I would conjecture that less than 50% of votes that are cast are based on such a decision. In my opinion an uninformed vote, or a vote that follows family traditions or local loyalties and does not take into account what is best for the country as a whole, should not be valued as highly as an informed vote based on an analysis of policies.

Unfortunately in a democracy votes are not weighted based on how one informs oneself and an informed vote will weigh as much as an uninformed one.

For this election I would urge uninformed voters to stay away from the polling booths! You are doing Ireland a far greater service by doing this than by voting uninformed.

henryporter

thetonynator wrote: »

IQ Measures intelligence, not social status, or which side of the liffey you're on. Being from a dodgy area doesn't reduce your intelligence, although it may decrease your chances of a decent education.

I think this comment gets more to the crux of the matter - the majority of the electorate have a poor to average level of education thanks to the leadership in this country (in fact the same scenario seems to occur in most western democracies). I'm not talking about degrees here - it's literacy levels thats the problem. IMO theres a 'dumbing-down education' agenda being applied in this country although it would be ludicrous to suggest that it's being done to ensure the continued usurpation of power by self interested politicians.

TBF I used to think the same thing as the OP particularly given that FF were returned in 2007 even though Bertie's betting prowess stories had surfaced prior to that election, but restricting rights to vote is going backwards - to go the other direction we need to demand change for a fairer society: something we're not going to get with the likes of FF or FG

myrak

Topper Harley01 wrote: »

As someone already pointed out, IQ =/= common sense.

In my opinion, an educated idiot is far more dangerous than a non-educated lay person.

As shown by the actions of the educated idiots in the Dail, the Banks and the higher Public Service.

Topper Harley01

henryporter wrote: »

I think this comment gets more to the crux of the matter - the majority of the electorate have a poor to average level of education thanks to the leadership in this country (in fact the same scenario seems to occur in most western democracies). I'm not talking about degrees here - it's literacy levels thats the problem. IMO theres a 'dumbing-down education' agenda being applied in this country although it would be ludicrous to suggest that it's being done to ensure the continued usurpation of power by self interested politicians.

TBF I used to think the same thing as the OP particularly given that FF were returned in 2007 even though Bertie's betting prowess stories had surfaced prior to that election, but restricting rights to vote is going backwards - to go the other direction we need to demand change for a fairer society: something we're not going to get with the likes of FF or FG

I'd have to disagree with you on this point-the people themselves are firmly responsible for their standard of literacy. Almost every young person has been through primary and secondary school, and knows very well how to spell, and form correct grammar. So there really is no excuse for the vast majority.

If you take boards.ie as an example, the average spelling and grammar is absolutely shocking. And you know what happens if you politely try to point it out to someone? You get called a grammar Nazi. So not only are people being lazy, but they are being arrogant about their own stupidity too.

Also, text speak has a lot to do with the decline. Maybe they will eventually have to load a programme into phones and computers that prevents a message/post being completed unless the grammar and spelling is correct. I see no other alternative at this stage-if you give people the option of being lazy, they will take it. And in classic hypocritical style, they will then turn around and blame the government when they find themselves unemployable, as their C.V. ends up in the bin every time they apply for a job.

macbrada

WhosUpDocs wrote: »

So you're basically proposing establishing an elite group of "informed and intelligent" people and not giving the "stupid" a vote.

Jump back 100 years, replace "informed and intelligent" for white and male and replace "stupid" for black or female. I mean you can't be serious?!

Imma stop feeding the trolls now

This is not about race or sex.........not an elite group but let's stop people who are not bothered or capable of informing themselves from voting...

I'm not suggesting sterilising those on the dole to prevent another generation of wasters .....I simply would like my future to be governed by intelligent choice...

Then again sterilising welfare professionals would save a lot!