Poll: Should mentally handicapped people be allowed to vote?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #21
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    If we implemented some kind of test for IQ or any mental handicap, I believe that would make one party start winning hands down.

    Everyone has a say in how their country is run, even the not so bright ones.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  2. #22
    Deleted
    It seems logical to indeed do this but where do you draw the line?

    There's plenty people with an IQ between 80 and 100 who can function at a decent level in society, but would you trust them to understand what is best for their entire country.

    People who are victim of spousal abuse are likely to vote for the choice their abuser desires, but would that be reason enough to bar them for their own protection and that of the country.

    Lesser Intelligent people who visit churches or mosques may be influenced into voting for a certain party that their religious leader desires, but is that reason to bar religious people from voting as they are likely not having their country's best interests at heart.

    A mentally disabled person who does vote will most likely vote what their parents/caretakers vote, so in that sense I don't see any reason why they should be banned, if half the country is allowed to vote on an equal level of influence.

  3. #23
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Asnerek View Post
    There's plenty people with an IQ between 80 and 100 who can function at a decent level in society, but would you trust them to understand what is best for their entire country.
    There's plenty of people with IQ's between 100-120 in political parties and in government. Would you trust them to understand what is best for their entire country?

  4. #24
    Can you follow the directions the cable news tells you?
    Do other people decide what you wear, think, feel about topics and people, and more?

    You can vote!

  5. #25
    Deleted
    For me it comes down to a simple concept in a democracy, do all the laws, regulations etc apply to them? Yes. So they have the right to vote on the direction of these regulations and laws through electing representatives.

    and tbf, where I live mentally handicapt people have a caregiver who co-signs decisions for people who can not do that themselves.

  6. #26
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,910
    I cannot agree with any kind of measure based on IQ or such.

    However, for quite some time, I've been of the opinion that a simple, short, multiple-choice quiz should be attached to voting. Say, 5 questions, all about current factual events relevant to the vote. If you get less than 4/5 correct, your vote doesn't count. To prevent this being "gamed" by people passing on the answers, pull the questions from a pool of 20-30, and randomize them for each voter. If you could memorize all 20-30, you're basically educating yourself, anyway.

    This goes for everyone. It's not about the "mentally handicapped", and frankly, a lot of the mentally handicapped I've worked with would do just fine on this kind of test, if they were interested in voting. It's a measure, mostly, to eliminate the uneducated, because those who don't understand what they're actually voting for are the greatest threat to reasoned democracy that there could be.

    And let me emphasize again; "current factual events". Nothing politically biased. No questions like "Abortion is a right, yes or no", just questions like "This individual is Secretary of State" or "If passed, Bill 1432-C would legalize the following;"
    Last edited by Endus; 2013-07-06 at 01:23 PM.


  7. #27
    No. Their vote will just be influenced by one of their carers effectively giving that person multiple votes.

  8. #28
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Krolikn View Post
    No. Their vote will just be influenced by one of their carers effectively giving that person multiple votes.
    Just like parents influencing their children to think just like them?

  9. #29
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenver View Post
    There's plenty of people with IQ's between 100-120 in political parties and in government. Would you trust them to understand what is best for their entire country?
    I trust some of them, but many of them seem to be more concerned with their personal career than their country's best interests, so as long as people with questionable motives can be in voted into power, I see no problem with people of questionable intelligence having the right to vote.

  10. #30
    The Undying Wildtree's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Iowa - Franconia
    Posts
    31,500
    I voted yes..... The day we decide whose to vote and who is not, the day we single out minorities is the day democracy died...
    There's no test needed. Mentally handicapped people don't have to be too deprived of their senses. There's large varieties of that kind of illness. The tests are obsolete because these people are in medical treatment, and the expertise of the doctors is rather sufficient.
    Who cannot vote? Children and anyone below the age of 18 for example.. If a mentally ill person has brain damage that puts them into this category, then they cannot vote anyway. If their illness does not put them into said category, then they can vote.
    Hence why I said.. The day we single out minorities (generalize all mentally handicapped without any exception), is the day we abandon democracy.
    "The pen is mightier than the sword.. and considerably easier to write with."

  11. #31
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I cannot agree with any kind of measure based on IQ or such.

    However, for quite some time, I've been of the opinion that a simple, short, multiple-choice quiz should be attached to voting. Say, 5 questions, all about current factual events relevant to the vote. If you get less than 4/5 correct, your vote doesn't count. To prevent this being "gamed" by people passing on the answers, pull the questions from a pool of 20-30, and randomize them for each voter. If you could memorize all 20-30, you're basically educating yourself, anyway.

    This goes for everyone. It's not about the "mentally handicapped", and frankly, a lot of the mentally handicapped I've worked with would do just fine on this kind of test, if they were interested in voting. It's a measure, mostly, to eliminate the uneducated, because those who don't understand what they're actually voting for are the greatest threat to reasoned democracy that there could be.

    And let me emphasize again; "current factual events". Nothing politically biased. No questions like "Abortion is a right, yes or no", just questions like "This individual is Secretary of State" or "If passed, Bill 1432-C would legalize the following;"
    The problem with all that is that it effectively sets some people's position as intrinsicially higher in a democracy.
    Who's more important, the farmer who feeds the country or the bureaucrat who works with law? Could a nation only consist of bureaucrats or likewise only consist of farmers?

    Who's more mentally ill? The person who zealigiously believes in religion and the word of God himself (or his son) or the janitor who doesn't know much but what's on television and works 9-5 gets home and crashes on the couch? The person who says one thing without knowing much about it but does it for reasons of popularity (*hrhr* politicians) or the scientist who is afraid to spread falsehood and thus refuse to say much and values individuality even with the negatives it has and thus does not fit easy into society?

    Like who's the mentally retarded one here of these, the person who in a rich, western country works for 5 years so he can buy a porsche while people are suffering in places of the Earth because they can't buy food for 1 dollar a day or the person in Africa who is starving and poor with no good future prospects who decides to steal or rob or become a pirate f.ex.? Who's the mentally retarded one?
    Last edited by mmoc859327f960; 2013-07-06 at 01:40 PM.

  12. #32
    Deleted
    Why even vote? Those dirtbags promise everything they can imagine just to get few votes more and when they finally get the place, minister or whatever, they do nothing.
    I understand that it is difficult to change things. Or that is what they say. Yeah.. Riiight.
    Somehow all difficulties vanish in thin air when someone with big money goes and asks some new laws! It takes maybe week or two for them and public founds themselves assraped yet again.

    So i don't vote because i found myself disgusted and feeling guilty if i do.

  13. #33
    if votes actually counted, i'd probably say no, or that we should all have to take a test. but since votes don't count, go ahead and let everyone vote. minors, inmates, fuck let people vote multiple times if they really want to - it doesn't really matter in the end due to the way the electoral college works anyhow.

  14. #34
    Deleted
    Sure, as long as there are options like
    "OOOuuuuueeeee"
    "I wanna be a dragon"
    "What it is?"
    "I am a politician"

  15. #35
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenver View Post
    The problem with all that is that it effectively sets some people's position as intrinsicially higher in a democracy.
    It really doesn't. There's no barrier to passing that quiz. Pretty much anyone can educate themselves enough to pass it. That's the point of it.
    Who's more important, the farmer who feeds the country or the bureaucrat who works with law? Could a nation only consist of bureaucrats or likewise only consist of farmers?
    If the farmers don't understand what their representatives stand for or what the political issues are about, they aren't making an informed vote. Uninformed votes are vastly more dangerous to a democracy than a limited vote. Uninformed votes are made by people being led for the wrong reasons.

    Who's more mentally ill? The person who zealigiously believes in religion and the word of God himself (or his son) or the janitor who doesn't know much but what's on television and works 9-5 gets home and crashes on the couch? The person who says one thing without knowing much about it but does it for reasons of popularity (*hrhr* politicians) or the scientist who is afraid to spread falsehood and thus refuse to say much and values individuality even with the negatives it has and thus does not fit easy into society?
    It isn't about any of that.

    If the zealot actually understands the political landscape, and their faith states they should vote for Party X because X stands for their ideals, that's fine. If the janitor is voting for Party Y because his parents do and he doesn't care, that's an egregious failing of the system.

    You don't have to agree with everyone else voting. You just need to expect them to be conscientious in their voting. To actually understand what they are voting for. It isn't a sports match where you root for your "team".


  16. #36
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    If you ever vote to limit the freedom of another person for purely religious reasons, then you are effectively legislating your faith and it should be considered a violation of the First Amendment rights of those who do not share your beliefs.
    That's how democracy works, though. There's plenty of means in place, like that very First Amendment, which prevents the kinds of abuses. Within that framework, informed citizens should have the full reign to make informed choices in their voting, even if others disagree with their choices. That's what democracy is, fundamentally; the right of everyone to hold beliefs and opinions that others disagree with, and to vote based on that disagreement. That's what makes the system work.

    The issue is that those beliefs need to be educated and informed beliefs. I don't care if someone is Catholic, or Muslim, or Atheist, so long as they are educated and informed about the issues. Ignorance and apathy are the greatest boogeymen available. I would much rather someone make an informed decision I totally disagree with, than someone make the same decision because they can't be arsed to learn a damn thing.


  17. #37
    Deleted
    Let's be honest, most of you "normal" Americans would probably fail that survey as well.

  18. #38
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    I'm not talking about agreement or disagreement, they could be voting the same way I am, I'm talking about a way of violating the First Amendment that people don't seem to understand is a violation.
    1> It's not a First Amendment violation unless the government passes a law which contradicts the First Amendment, in which case SCOTUS will overturn it on appeal, or unless there are government sanctions for the content of your speech, whether through fines or arrests, in absence of such a law. Just voting for someone who says they don't like "hate crimes" or something? Not a violation.

    2> If you vote for someone who wishes to repeal the First Amendment, and they push that bill through, and it passes with full state ratification, then there has been no violation whatsoever of the First Amendment or the Constitution. The First Amendment isn't somehow immune to this process. It's pretty much never going to happen, but it's absolutely within the realm of what's permitted.


  19. #39
    If they are mentally competent, i.e. able to understand what they're doing, then yes, they should have the right to vote. All the arguments against it apply just as much to anyone else of higher testable IQ.

  20. #40
    Unless you start testing the "alleged" un-handicapped adults then no. In all honesty how can we as a society look down on handicapped citizens when the majority of this nation is the equivalent of a current generation moron.

    Sure based on some archaic measurement developed in oh the 1600's they may be judged as possessing median intelligence. However, in reality I sincerely doubt that even 30% of the current voting pool has invested the time and utilized the requisite intelligence to make an informed choice.

    Honestly I'd gladly move to a citizenship only after military service or passing general knowledge tests. They don't even have to be particularly hard tests but just like the SAT's and the ACT's people would still find a way to screw it up.
    Dragonflight Summary, "Because friendship is magic"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •