nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Should people have to pass an I.Q. test to vote?

silent gav

Pretty self explanatory. Would the country be in a better or worse place if people had to get a certain level in an I.Q. Test before they were eligible to vote?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Teyla Emmagan

Great idea. See the SF vote go through the floor.

dav3

It would do away with the FF/FG 'sure me mammy and daddy vote for them and I can't think for myself' brigade. I'd say the Healy-Raes and Michael Lowry wouldn't be too fond of your proposal OP.

WakeUp

for a thread that supposedly has to do with intelligence or lack of thereof those advocating such a thing might want to familiarise themselves with the definition of the word democracy before getting ahead of themselves. up there in those ivory towers.

damnant quod non intellegunt with regard to a modern day democracy and how it works certainly rings true with some of the comments here. how ironic.

Leopardhyena

lazybones32 wrote: »

IQ tests are only a measure of how well you did on that exam, not a true measure of human intelligence -which has seven different areas.

We already live in a system where those in power think they are smarter than the little people...

IQ tests measure how well you can reason and apply logic as well as spatial skills. Those skills apply to other areas of life, not just IQ tests.

HalloweenJack

Don't agree with this idea, per se, as it is unfair and elitist.

However, I remember at the time of the Lisbon treaty thinking that it'd be a good idea to have a quick on the spot true or false quiz about the real implications of the Lisbon treaty before they handed you your voting card. It's a surefire way to prove that you actually know what you're voting on. I was sick of all the pure lies being spread from both sides in that campaign.

Something like that would be a good idea for referendums, to stop all the scaremongering idiots getting a vote in. Imagine in the same-sex marriage vote, you have to answer questions like "homosexuality is natural - true or false?". The bigots vote would be wiped out before it even gets to the polls.

Gannicus

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Imagine in the same-sex marriage vote, you have to answer questions like "homosexuality is natural - true or false?". The bigots vote would be wiped out before it even gets to the polls.

I'm in favour of same sex marriage. In saying that I reckon the no vote will win. The older generations who think homosexuality is "wrong" will vote in their masses but the younger generation (who I find vote seldomly if at all) that will be "okay" with gay marriage won't make much of an impact to affect the result their way while the LGBT community will be there to bolster the numbers for a yes vote

Panrich

People with high intelligence tend to have less children than people with lower intelligence. Therefore the global IQ is falling:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/people-getting-dumber-human-intelligence-victoria-era_n_3293846.html

The quality of decisions being made democratically will also tend to decline as we move forwards as this trend continues. This is not good as we are all profoundly affected by the decisions of the electorate.

It's a valid question to ask by the OP but there will be no solution as it's too difficult to address as any potential solution would have to be elitist in some way and that's possibly worse. Having said that, I personally would rather our elected representatives were selected by groups of highly intelligent and functioning members of our society, rather than the current model where a TDs popularity and success is based on getting services for people who don't qualify as per the rules.

Teyla Emmagan

Gannicus wrote: »

I'm in favour of same sex marriage. In saying that I reckon the no vote will win. The older generations who think homosexuality is "wrong" will vote in their masses but the younger generation (who I find vote seldomly if at all) that will be "okay" with gay marriage won't make much of an impact to affect the result their way while the LGBT community will be their to bolster the numbers for a yes vote

I did one of those exit polls last time I voted (local elections) and the lady said the same sex marriage bill would definitely pass based on the indications she had seen that day. But I am in a large urban area, it could have been polling very differently elsewhere.

ThinkAboutIt

What would Sinn Feins support be if you had the pass an IQ test? 0%?

Gannicus

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I did one of those exit polls last time I voted (local elections) and the lady said the same sex marriage bill would definitely pass based on the indications she had seen that day. But I am in a large urban area, it could have been polling very differently elsewhere.

I'd say it may pass in Dublin & Cork if it were done county by county or even province by province leinster due to the populaion of Dublin itself, but come voting day itself I reckon it would still come out as a no vote nationally which is a shame that here are still so many people stuck in that way of thinking.

Cool Mo D

Panrich wrote: »

People with high intelligence tend to have less children than people with lower intelligence. Therefore the global IQ is falling:

You're wrong. It's well known that global IQ is actually rising steadily - people with a normal IQ in the 1970's could be marked as special needs now.

It's called the Flynn effect : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

And IQ tests were not designed to measure intelligence.

Grayson

feargale wrote: »

As a university graduate I have a vote in Seanad elections but I would abolish that privilege too. Democracy means one person, one vote, and anything other than democracy is a recipe for conflict.

I'm actually ok with the seanad vote. I think the seanad needs reform but i think that if universities, trade unions and other representative groups are allowed to send people to the seanad we may get a group that is both diverse and educated.

gypsy79

Intelligence isnt what should be used to measure if been allowed to vote. It should be based on contribution to society. People who take more than they give should not be allowed to vote

That is what got us where we are. People continued to vot for FF give aways

People dont like this or one of the worst American president in history would never have got a second term

HalloweenJack

Gannicus wrote: »

I'm in favour of same sex marriage. In saying that I reckon the no vote will win. The older generations who think homosexuality is "wrong" will vote in their masses but the younger generation (who I find vote seldomly if at all) that will be "okay" with gay marriage won't make much of an impact to affect the result their way while the LGBT community will be there to bolster the numbers for a yes vote

But this is exactly the thing about my proposal.

If you answer questions like "Homsoexuality is natural" with "false" because of your religious beliefs, then you wouldn't get to vote because you are clearly not thinking about things logically.

If you answer "true" and then vote no, fair enough that's your choice but at least you'll have shown that you are actually acknowledging the fact but you just disagree with it.

lazybones32

Leopardhyena wrote: »

IQ tests measure how well you can reason and apply logic as well as spatial skills. Those skills apply to other areas of life, not just IQ tests.

Afraid not...study a little deeper and you will see how flawed the whole IQ test-method is. I only stumbled on it when I was researching about how children learn.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html

Black people in America score lower on IQ tests than their white counterparts; does this mean that black people are less intelligent than whites?

dlouth15

HalloweenJack wrote: »

But this is exactly the thing about my proposal.

If you answer questions like "Homsoexuality is natural" with "false" because of your religious beliefs, then you wouldn't get to vote because you are clearly not thinking about things logically.

If you answer "true" and then vote no, fair enough that's your choice but at least you'll have shown that you are actually acknowledging the fact but you just disagree with it.

The problem is that cynics would say that you are trying to predetermine the outcome of the referendum with this test.

Panrich

Cool Mo D wrote: »

You're wrong. It's well known that global IQ is actually rising steadily - people with a normal IQ in the 1970's could be marked as special needs now.

It's called the Flynn effect : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

And IQ tests were not designed to measure intelligence.

Unless you have something better than that to argue your case the I'll stick by my assertions:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/intelligence-quotient-james-flynn

It is crazy to think (as someone who was around at the time) that my peers in the 70s who could all read and write to level not common nowadays, would be considered special needs.

Gannicus

gypsy79 wrote: »

Intelligence isnt what should be used to measure if been allowed to vote. It should be based on contribution to society. People who take more than they give should not be allowed to vote

I would go on a bit of a tanget and say those on welfare who don't vote shout have money docked from their welfare payments unless they are elderly, infirm or on disability

gypsy79

lazybones32 wrote: »

Black people in America score lower on IQ tests than their white counterparts; does this mean that black people are less intelligent than whites?

It may mean that black people are less good at that particular test. They are possibly better at other human "tests"

There has been much testing on aboriginals in Austrailia that shows their brain power is considerably less than white people. This would make sense due to the isolation they suffered until 200 years ago. The Flynn test discussed earlier would be further reasons why it has happened

It is very un PC to talk about this

Duck Soup

Sure. Why not. Eligibility tests for voting have a long and honorable history.

http://abhmuseum.org/2012/09/voting-rights-for-blacks-and-poor-whites-in-the-jim-crow-south/

Grayson

It would be hilarious if TD's had to do this and put it on all their election posters.

I remember during the divorce referendum people saying they wouldn't vote for divorce because they didn't want one.

dlouth15

gypsy79 wrote: »

It may mean that black people are less good at that particular test. They are possibly better at other human "tests"

There has been much testing on aboriginals in Austrailia that shows their brain power is considerably less than white people. This would make sense due to the isolation they suffered until 200 years ago. The Flynn test discussed earlier would be further reasons why it has happened

It is very un PC to talk about this

I didn't post that. You have attributed it to me for some reason.

gypsy79

Gannicus wrote: »

I would go on a bit of a tanget and say those on welfare who don't vote shout have money docked from their welfare payments unless they are elderly, infirm or on disability

Why??

So they can vote for whoever offers them more free stuff??

It stink of Mitt Romney!

gypsy79

dlouth15 wrote: »

I didn't post that. You have attributed it to me for some reason.

Apologies....can see above it was lazybones32

Dont know how that happened

dlouth15

gypsy79 wrote: »

Apologies....can see above it was lazybones32

Dont know how that happened

No problem. Please edit your post to reflect that.

Dravokivich

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Absolutely yes.

Ridiculous that some pea-brained shinner Celtic-jersey-wearing scumbag who left school at 14 has the same power to influence politics as those who've completed higher education and actually know about how the world works.

Same goes for politicians.

And politicians who have cabinet roles must have at least a docterate/PhD in that field.

I don't think IQ means what you think it means.

Ficheall

lazybones32 wrote: »

Black people in America score lower on IQ tests than their white counterparts; does this mean that black people are less intelligent than whites?

Incredibly un-PC though it may be to say it - is it fair to say that black people in America are physically stronger than white people, given that that is what their ancestors were bred for before the abolition of slavery?

Grayson

Ficheall wrote: »

Incredibly un-PC though it may be to say it - is it fair to say that black people in America are physically stronger than white people, given that that is what their ancestors were bred for before the abolition of slavery?

Are there studies on that?

I know the average black IQ is lower, but that is because of the environment. White people in the same environment experience the same effects.

Rather than saying black people have a lower IQ it should really be poor people have a lower IQ.

HalloweenJack

dlouth15 wrote: »

The problem is that cynics would say that you are trying to predetermine the outcome of the referendum with this test.

You could argue that. I would say it's weeding out the people who aren't dealing with the facts of the referendum, they're just voting on some reactional instinct.

By proving that you understand the facts (by passing the true/false statements), then you can at least prove you've thought about the facts of the referendum and the subsequent consequences of its approval.

gypsy79

Ficheall wrote: »

Incredibly un-PC though it may be to say it - is it fair to say that black people in America are physically stronger than white people, given that that is what their ancestors were bred for before the abolition of slavery?

We are different races....we are different. These are the facts!

But you cannot say any of this in a world outside anonymous internet boards.

Sad as it may be