Do you think the mentally handicapped should have a right to vote?

[Deleted]

Sorry but i love laying in these delicate subjects.

Now it kind of depends on the countries political system, i realise that. In America, you either choose democrats or republican, in europe you choose 1 party out of 20 ish and the majority of votes try to make a coalition.

From my point of view, the legal age to vote in pretty much any country is 18. Yet we give the same rights to mentally handicapped people that with all due respect have the IQ of an average 10 year old. Indirectly, they decide on healthcare, economy, militairy, social system and basicly all the important things that a party stands for.

I realise that we live in a democracy, where everyone has their rights, but hasn't democracy gone a little to far with this? We basicly put "the right thing to do" over "the smart thing to".

So what do you think? Should the mentally handicapped be allowed to vote? Should they fill in a test beforehand, for that matter, should anyone? Why?

For those that care: i think everyone should take a test before getting the right to vote. It sorts out the people that have no clue about politics, the ones that really don't care (since they won't take the bother of filling in the survey) and it has a higher chance "Smart people" decide who runs the country.

[LilSaihah]

Should they fill in a test beforehand, for that matter, should anyone?

Yes. You should have to fill in a test on the candidate that you're voting for and against to prove that you know what the hell you're doing.

[Deleted]

Since we don't decide pretty much anything by direct vote, I don't see an issue.

[Deleted]

Ah damn, I voted no, but then I saw the option that everyone should fill in the survery before they get a chance to vote, I'll chose that instead.


Too many people just vote on candidates based on just how nice they look or only the lies they tell in their last campaign, so a survey for every person, mentally challanged or not, is required to vote. For everyone.

[Deleted]

Stopping certain citizens from voting rarely ends well, history has proven this. The only exception is criminals, if they are not living in society they have no say in how to run it.

[Fountaiin]

You mean they don't already? USA USA USA

[Vargur]

Stopping certain citizens from voting rarely ends well, history has proven this. The only exception is criminals, if they are not living in society they have no say in how to run it.

They'll still be affected in their fenced society.

[Theodon]

I had an idea on a totally new way to vote (or new that I know of) where you are given a questionaire on what things you want to see changed, and based on that questionaire you are then presented with policy changes that reflect what you want to have changed or improved in some way, and you vote based on which of those policies match your own wants and needs.

Once that is done, the party that matches those wants and needs in the majority of cases gets your vote. That obviously has some serious room for additionals and improvements, as my idea occured 10 minutes ago! That would ensure that informed choices are made however, and party bias might even be eliminated as you don't know specifically which party you are voting for.

[Deleted]

I had an idea on a totally new way to vote (or new that I know of) where you are given a questionaire on what things you want to see changed, and based on that questionaire you are then presented with policy changes that reflect what you want to have changed or improved in some way, and you vote based on which of those policies match your own wants and needs.

Once that is done, the party that matches those wants and needs in the majority of cases gets your vote. That obviously has some serious room for additionals and improvements, as my idea occured 10 minutes ago! That would ensure that informed choices are made however, and party bias might even be eliminated as you don't know specifically which party you are voting for.

Holland has a thing like that. Basicly a survey where you fill in certain standpoints, then you get a score which political party fits you best. Yet those are always biased based on the website that offers it.

[Shiny212]

If they are indeed on the level of a 10 year old intellectually I don't think they have any business voting.

[Falrinn]

My belief on voting rights is simple. Once you are granted the right to vote, it should not be revoked under any circumstances except death.

The basic purpose of this idea is to prevent a not-so-nice administration from trying to deny supporters of the opposition voting rights on technicalities. In the case of requiring people to take test to prove mental competence, a sufficiently clever person could rig the tests to be more inconvenient or difficult for demographics that poll strongly for the opposition.

And yes it would have the effect of enfranchising a lot of despicable people, but I'm confident anyone who pandered to the "convicted murderer" demographic would lose too many votes in other areas to come out ahead.

[Arganis]

What's the point. Last I checked mentally handicapped people had bigger problems on their mind than politics.

[Deleted]

Ideally, everyone should have a vote. Freedom has always been wrestled for with sacrifice and conservatism has its reasons. I cannot see any reason why someone should in the end stand above someone else in a relation to voting in a democratic system.

A society must try to weed out its own badness and that includes power mongering and greed over excluding so-called criminals. Who's the criminal? Mandela or the system that put him in jail for 27 years or what it was? The people who speak up against oppresion and torture in China, some of the nations of former Soviet Russia or Africa (or even North Korea) or the people in the system that sentence them to hard punishment? A society must in that fashion try to overcome itself and it must rest on moral and truthful purposes, but it is of course a long road where sacrifices must be made and future generations will reap what has been sowed by previous generations. A generation and a country must try to weed out its weak points and provides usefulness and meaningfulness for its next generation and its following inhabitants and such things must be based on universal human concepts.

Who was the criminals?
Jews or Hitler?
Assad or the rebelling people?
Gaddafi or the rebelling people?
Indians or the US occupiers?
Atheists or the churches burning, drowning or hanging non-believers?
US in Vietnam or Vietnam defending itself?
Edward Snowden or US government?
The Afghan and/or Iraqi people defending themselves or US invading their lands?


Some previous groups that have been given the right to vote:
Poor people
People who are not part of the aristocracy
Slaves
Women
Homosexual people

[Deleted]

I always had a problem with the "universal" part of "universal suffrage". I mean, it's nice that educated people who know what they want and can think for themselves get a vote, but what about all dem sheeple out there? what about guys who'd instantly believe any campaign pledge made by a politician?

Ah well, looking at germany, I don't see votes changing this country anyways, what with coalitions and the whole codswallop. *shrugs*

[Deleted]

Yes. Do you actually think they turn out to vote though?

[Deleted]

While we're at it why not stop all people with a below average IQ from voting... Why not just find the most intelligent man in the UK (Or America) and only let him vote because his intelligence is superior to yours so he is more equipped to make the decision.

What if there was a handicapped guy in a wheelchair and someone wanted to bring in a law that every public place must be wheelchair accessible... So why shouldn't this handicapped guy be allowed to vote for them?

Also you must define mentally handicapped. Depression is a mental illness, do you think that a quarter of the population should be banned from voting because they suffer from depression. What about the half of the population who believe in some sort of God (It is scientifically proven that people who believe that God is real is retarded) should they get the right to vote? These law abiding citizens who just so happen to believe that there is a magic man who lives in the sky... They are quite obviously mental, so why should they vote.

Only a moron would think that he and he alone has the right to vote because he is more intelligent than someone. Mental illness comes in many different forms, people who can think and feel for themselves should absolutely have the right to vote, yes that includes people with down syndrome... they might look like they are a lesser being to ignorant people like yourself but they are just as much of a human as the next guy and whoever thinks they should have fewer rights than themselves has no respect for human life and it's them who I don't want to have the right to vote... plainly because they have no concept of equality.

Infracted

[skrump]

In my opinion everyone should be allowed to vote unless they have served time in prison (this would stop people like Lindsey Lohan from voting)
But yeah I have much more respect for the mentally retarded than I do for the willingly stupid.

[Deleted]

The survey would lead to abuses (such as considering anyone as possibly "mentally handicaped") and making up that sort of hierarchy is against their dignity as a human. Plus if you want to control that survey so that anyone just doesn't get helped, you'll give an institution the power to grant or not the right to vote. Any person that wouldn't "pass" the survey wouldn't be considered as a citizen and thus it wouldn't be a democracy in theory.

But if you want to restrict the right to vote, just why don't you create a status where people with mental troubles wouldn't be granted all of their rights as long as they remain in such a state ? It would require them to be declared incapable (of voting and of doing various other things as well), instead of asking anyone if they actually are capable : the presomption would be reversed.

Also, I wonder why you'd want this kind of restrictions. Many people aren't clear-sighted enough to understand their vote anyway (I have a thought for Egypt but also for many european countries) so being able to vote for what you think is the best option is of no importance. What does count is the number of people giving the president his legitimity since the "smart people" will end up following what fit their needs, never mind the country's.

And by the way, I might have gotten you wrong but...

Indirectly, they decide on healthcare, economy, militairy, social system and basicly all the important things that a party stands for.

So, because someone stupid would give credit to a person, that one would be less responsible for doing complete nonsense ? Do you believe that mentally handicapped people are required to vote for someone that will destroy a country's economy ? I don't think Greeks were less clever than american people, far from it. On the other side, a candidate is supposedly able to do what he may be elected for (leading a country), regardless what citizens gave him enough of a legitimity. And if he's not able to do so, then it belongs to the institutions to change their way to propose candidates, not a question of who voted for him.

[Deleted]

We stop minors from voting so why wouldn't we stop people with an equivalent mental age from voting?

Have you seen some some of the idiots that are currently allowed to vote? We going to give everybody in the country an IQ test when they turn of age? I know one dumbass that once checked if an exposed wire was live (it was) by licking it, he is allowed to drive, vote, drink and if he really wanted to, buy a gun. Legally he is not mentally handicapped, just an idiot.

[Neetz]

It's just another token that won't be counted so sure, why not.