|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 6, 2011 20:47:53 GMT -5
Because stupid and ignorant people (provided they aren't deemed mentally disabled) are still Sovereigns. It isn't about being smart enough; it's about the sovereignty of the People. The United States Constitution does not tolerate classes of people. You cannot have an over-class of intelligentsia (determined by whom? I would add) and and under-class of ignorant subservient runtlings. What you're proposing sounds like something out of Well's The Time Machine. So change the constitution. Duh. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 6, 2011 20:53:17 GMT -5
Uh no thanks. I like the 14th Amendment the way it is, especially that whole bit about how the law must treat everybody equally.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 6, 2011 21:01:31 GMT -5
Uh no thanks. I like the 14th Amendment the way it is, especially that whole bit about how the law must treat everybody equally. Except that it already doesn't. There are already exceptions, people who are not allowed to vote, so claiming that allowing some people more votes than others would be something new and unreasonable is plainly false. Do you LIKE having your country run by people elected by ignorant morons? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 6, 2011 21:27:52 GMT -5
There are different tiers on which a law is judged under the 14th Amendment. A law that strips felons of their voting rights for life (which I vehemently disagree with) burdens people on a basis of their willful action and would be upheld. A law that would strip gay people of their right to vote would burden people on a suspect or quasi-suspect classification and would not be viewed as kindly.
There being a "right to vote" is not something that was established at the beginning of the country. And indeed even the 14th Amendment did not secure the right of women to vote (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162). But with the texts of the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendment all indicating an explicit right to vote, and with our modern-day conception of Equal Protection doctrine, it would seem indefensible to classify people by intelligence, a quality that we have little control over, and create from there a superior class and a subservient under-class.
It is also important to note that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires a sixth grade education in order to vote. So you can't be entirely mentally incompetent and still vote.
What constitutes an ignorant opinion? Is it a political opinion you disagree with? An opinion you think is not in the best interest of society? I would rather have my country be run by ignorant morons than have a rigid, class-based society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 7, 2011 4:09:11 GMT -5
How do you even define stupidity? A person can be a total moron in some ways, yet intelligent in others. IQ tests don't suffice, as they can't account for social intelligence or basic common sense, and using school grades/level of education completed is even more problematic -- there are plenty of intelligent people whose education was impeded by other factors.
Children don't vote because their brains are still developing & they lack life experience. Likewise for teenagers, with the added issue of hormones and the resulting mood instability. Sure, plenty of adults are dumb, sheltered and/or emotionally unstable, but these characteristics are generally more profound in your average child versus you average adult. Adults are also separated from children by the fact that they're expected to fulfill a number of obligations from which minors are exempt. As such, you really can't compare the two.
I'm not comfortable with giving the government the power to decide whether or not legal adult citizens are allowed to vote, regardless of criteria. Yes, these are slippery slope fears, but there are times when the potential for abuse is high enough to justify the "better safe than sorry" mentality. If you eliminate universal suffrage for adult citizens, you're basically ripping out the backbone of democracy.
And that's not even getting into the ethics of discounting a person's rights in society simply because they're stupid...
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 7, 2011 5:39:13 GMT -5
How do you even define stupidity? A person can be a total moron in some ways, yet intelligent in others. IQ tests don't suffice, as they can't account for social intelligence or basic common sense, and using school grades/level of education completed is even more problematic -- there are plenty of intelligent people whose education was impeded by other factors. Children don't vote because their brains are still developing & they lack life experience. Likewise for teenagers, with the added issue of hormones and the resulting mood instability. Sure, plenty of adults are dumb, sheltered and/or emotionally unstable, but these characteristics are generally more profound in your average child versus you average adult. Adults are also separated from children by the fact that they're expected to fulfill a number of obligations from which minors are exempt. As such, you really can't compare the two. I'm not comfortable with giving the government the power to decide whether or not legal adult citizens are allowed to vote, regardless of criteria. Yes, these are slippery slope fears, but there are times when the potential for abuse is high enough to justify the "better safe than sorry" mentality. If you eliminate universal suffrage for adult citizens, you're basically ripping out the backbone of democracy. And that's not even getting into the ethics of discounting a person's rights in society simply because they're stupid... I already acknowledged that the mechanism for working out who is stupid and who isn't would need work. I'm happy to agree that IQ tests, as they stand, are not sufficient for the task. But the specifics of application aside, I don't see the problem with the principle. You can talk about worrying about people's rights, of course, but the fact is, we ALREADY deny people certain "rights" for a variety of reasons, some considerably more arbitrary than one's intelligence. Like I already said, when faced with a decision effecting one's health, or finances, we seek out the most intelligent, best trained person available. I don't see why decisions effecting the future wellbeing of a nation and its people should be held to a different standard. Surely its best when the people best suited for the decision making are the one's making the decision? And yes, I am aware that what I am saying is contrary to the idea of "one man one vote" Democracy. However, I see nothing anywhere to suggest that that style of Democracy is necessarily the apex of human political achievment. Indeed, given the continuing cavalcade of populist horror being perpetuated in the Australian and American parliaments, I increasingly think it is not, and that it is time to try something a little different. Other than knee jerk resistance to change, can you honestly see no benefit from what I am proposing? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 7, 2011 5:40:50 GMT -5
There are different tiers on which a law is judged under the 14th Amendment. A law that strips felons of their voting rights for life (which I vehemently disagree with) burdens people on a basis of their willful action and would be upheld. A law that would strip gay people of their right to vote would burden people on a suspect or quasi-suspect classification and would not be viewed as kindly. There being a "right to vote" is not something that was established at the beginning of the country. And indeed even the 14th Amendment did not secure the right of women to vote ( Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162). But with the texts of the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendment all indicating an explicit right to vote, and with our modern-day conception of Equal Protection doctrine, it would seem indefensible to classify people by intelligence, a quality that we have little control over, and create from there a superior class and a subservient under-class. It is also important to note that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires a sixth grade education in order to vote. So you can't be entirely mentally incompetent and still vote. What constitutes an ignorant opinion? Is it a political opinion you disagree with? An opinion you think is not in the best interest of society? I would rather have my country be run by ignorant morons than have a rigid, class-based society. "Class based"? We're talking about people voting, not their ability to make money and lead full and productive lives. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 7, 2011 5:44:38 GMT -5
I can see the theoretical benefits, but it's the potential drawbacks that concern me.
|
|
|
|
Post by shykid on Sept 7, 2011 6:44:15 GMT -5
Even basic stupidity deterrents like "literacy" tests have serious drawbacks and potential concerns (i.e., look at what they were really used for).
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 7, 2011 6:56:40 GMT -5
Not economic classes, but social classes. What you're advocating for would be to create a two-tiered society: an over-class of chosen intelligentsia and a subservient underclass of "Morlocks." While one-man-one-vote may hamper my personal political preferences from being chosen all the time, I can be more principled than that and see the greater good in giving everyone a voice in running the society they form a part of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Sept 7, 2011 20:35:18 GMT -5
Ladies, gentlemen, please stop feeding the troll.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 8, 2011 6:21:03 GMT -5
Ladies, gentlemen, please stop feeding the troll. Which one? |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Sept 8, 2011 6:25:20 GMT -5
Ladies, gentlemen, please stop feeding the troll. Which one? Pick one. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 8, 2011 6:26:57 GMT -5
Nnn... such a hard decision... Wait, I don't post in this thread, what do I care?  |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Sept 8, 2011 13:07:48 GMT -5
I think I understand this guy's position...
IF the poor can vote with their true numbers, they will have as much if not more power then the rich who not only vote but spend lots of money to lobby. They would vote their interests, reversing the the wealth distribution that has been making all the wealth go to the top these last 3 decades.
In short, this guy is afraid the poor will do to the rich what the rich have been doing to the poor
|
|
