Voting among the less intelligent

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Where is that listed as an explicit right?

The right to vote is mentioned several times in the constitution, most notably in the fourteenth, fifteenth, nineteenth, and twenty-sixth amendments.

I've actually been thinking on this topic a little bit, because - as is my nature - I tend to sit on the fence quite a bit, to the point where one suspects there is now an extra crevice in my buttocks. The idea of political literacy in a democratic system appeals to me somewhat, because I do not have sufficient faith in the collective decision-making of a massive population. This is actually one of the major reasons why Chinese urbanites - the people who have much better access to education - are actually not thrilled about the idea of democracy as, say, workers, farmers, and students. It goes beyond simply having less power - realistically, your average non-rich urbanite in Shanghai doesn't have a lot more say over political matters in China than your average farmer Wafangdian in the current Chinese system - but a matter of being completely outvoted in a hypothetical Chinese democracy, where farmers and workers - most of whom have little access to even primary school-level education - vastly outnumber urbanites. Might they look at the possibility of it being legal to abandon daughters in favor for sons again because they're "more useful in the fields"? Shall they re-legalize polygamy? Because these are popular measures amongst the Chinese rural population, and the law barely keeps them in check. Sure, national laws might forbid it, but it's a democracy; why can't national laws be changed? Even the Amendments in the United States Constitution can be amended. Unthinkable as it is, it's theoretically possible to take away the Bill of Rights through entirely legal means. An Amendment has been repealed before; in theory, there's nothing stopping it from happening again and again. It is not unreasonable to assume that an undereducated, uninformed, and illiterate population can sabotage prudent bills simply out of a lack of political awareness.

But, in the end, I decided against supporting this position (except when I will put on my Devil's Advocate hat and challenge someone when I think it'd be interesting to do so). The fact of the matter is that politics and governance is not important to everyone, they're not critical to everyone's jobs, and even if it were, not everyone has access to such educational resources. There's no reason why a farmer who will spend rest of his life manually tilling the land would want to learn anything about economics beyond his own pocketbook and how much of a profit he can earn at the market. There's no reason why he has to be worried about the construction of a nuclear plant and its protests happening eight states or provinces over. It'd be nice, but it also has nothing to do with his livelihood, and there's not even the guarantee he'll ever have the chance to learn about it. Much of the "politically illiterate" in any democracy are the "proletariat": The blue-collars, the farmers, the laborers, the workers. These are people outside the collection of our urban infrastructure, outside where we're most concerned about national and state budgets. It might not be entirely unreasonable to account for the Southern Californian frat girls (disclaimer: I'm Californian-raised, so I consider myself totally justified in poking fun at my own) aren't sure if France is even a country and think Europe is a country, but the ignorant overprivileged are generally vastly outnumbered by the people who are disadvantaged, who have no ready access to education, and who have no practical incentive to give three damns as to the checks and balances of their politics and the organs of their governments.

But they ultimately contribute to society. An American factory worker might not know what the vice-president's official duties are, but he's going to be concerned about his industry, his trade, his livelihood. A Chinese farmer might not know the difference between the president and the premier, but he's going to be worried about agricultural policies that dictate how well the harvest will be this year and - therefore - whether or not he can feed his family through the winter. These people do not need to know the second thing about politics or governance in their everyday jobs, but they can certainly elect someone to represent them, someone who has their interests, and if they lose the vote, well, at least they had a vote. Isn't this the public reason as to why the American colonies rebelled against the British anyways? Because the British believe the colonists were politically illiterate, patted them on the head and said "we know what's best for you", and then taxed them without representation? Because ultimately, most of the "politically literate" are going to come from the cities, and the urbanites will understandably be a whole lot more concerned about funding going to city projects instead of funding going to the factories or the farmlands. And when only around 20% of America's populations belong in the top ninety cities ordered by population get most of the votes, that's not a democracy; that's an oligarchy at best, and a plutocracy at worst.

Of course, at this point, there will be calls of, "Well, these people need to be educated. We can't let them know nothing and then allow them to vote." That's not possible. The money isn't there, the resources aren't there (or, at least, we've spent it all on defense and the Super Bowl). If the money was here, if we could provide education on such matters to every person in the country, we wouldn't be here talking about the problem of people being "politically illiterate" in the first place. The truth is that while we should be concerned, while we should look at the big picture, the truth is that most of the big picture is comprised of a demographic with inconvenient access and little motivation to learn more about politics and governance, and they need a say to, because most other people aren't going to stand up much for them when we've got out own problems. We should let them vote because they also represent major agricultural and industrial blocs that are vital to a nation's prosperity and productivity. They don't need to understand everything about politics; they just need someone who does understand to stand up for their interests. And while we must certainly worry about individuals running for elections deceiving the "politically illiterate" voters, the onus should be on the politicians not to lie, not on the people to call out the liars when they themselves don't know they're being lied to.

Because, you know, it's not as if urbanites themselves haven't been successfully lied to when we were told there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or anything. ^_^;

I'd rather the masses (Or anyone, for that matter) not determine what is best for society, without their consent, through voting (Or any other method of rule, for that matter). A Democracy is still a tyranny, although with a mindless blob as the tyrant as opposed to a human figurehead. Rule is bad.

Although, honestly, if we have to live under the rule of others, then I'd rather those others be composed of scientists, engineers, philosophers and intellectuals than inferioroids such as Jimbob Derpdumb who has not bothered to educate himself about the world beyond a high school level (When there are still large quantities of individuals who believe that "Well, if we evolved from monkeys, then why are monkeys still here?" is a valid argument, it should go without saying that giving them power over others is a bad idea.).

My dream is of a world where everyone is an intellectual. We're not there yet.

Originally Posted by Bolin

The right to vote is mentioned several times in the constitution, most notably in the fourteenth, fifteenth, nineteenth, and twenty-sixth amendments.

Yes, and it is mentioned in ways that such an act cannot be stopped -- for reasons of race, for example. It doesn't grant one the right to a vote as it does, say, free expression.

To quote Wikipedia: "The "right to vote" is explicitly stated in the US Constitution in the above referenced amendments but only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons."

Originally Posted by Ysionris

Of course, at this point, there will be calls of, "Well, these people need to be educated. We can't let them know nothing and then allow them to vote." That's not possible. The money isn't there, the resources aren't there (or, at least, we've spent it all on defense and the Super Bowl). If the money was here, if we could provide education on such matters to every person in the country, we wouldn't be here talking about the problem of people being "politically illiterate" in the first place. The truth is that while we should be concerned, while we should look at the big picture, the truth is that most of the big picture is comprised of a demographic with inconvenient access and little motivation to learn more about politics and governance, and they need a say to, because most other people aren't going to stand up much for them when we've got out own problems. We should let them vote because they also represent major agricultural and industrial blocs that are vital to a nation's prosperity and productivity. They don't need to understand everything about politics; they just need someone who does understand to stand up for their interests. And while we must certainly worry about individuals running for elections deceiving the "politically illiterate" voters, the onus should be on the politicians not to lie, not on the people to call out the liars when they themselves don't know they're being lied to.

Because, you know, it's not as if urbanites themselves haven't been successfully lied to when we were told there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or anything. ^_^;

I always enjoy reading your well thought out posts, Ysionris.

As I read through your post, and you noted that you didn't agree with the stance of limiting the ability of the uninformed to vote, I honestly don't feel you have provided good enough justification for allowing them their vote.

You do make the point that they are large, crucial portions the nation in relation to industry and agriculture, and that they simply need someone who does understand more about what will affect them to represent them. Really, this is how most systems are built to work -- they rely off of the idea that the representative will be public servants. However, as we have seen from, well, most of human history, often, people are taken advantage of in a vulnerable position. Although you mention that the onus should be on the politicians, which I agree with, who is going to pressure them? The electorate they are currently deceiving and have on their side? Or the people who actually know better, who have a greater capacity to control government and invoke positive change?

I must ask: how can someone with very limited political, economic, and historical knowledge make a good choice on issues which can have very small, but compounding and far reaching consequences across nations, economies, and millions of people? How do they really know what they need? This speaks to the point you finished with: that they don't even know they are being lied to. After all, how would they? So I say, how can they know what is good for them beyond simple things like "feed me". There are more complicated issues at hand -- how do we get the food? Pay for it? Maintain it? Transport it? Etc.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I always enjoy reading your well thought out posts, Ysionris.

Thank you; the feeling is mutual. ^_^

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

However, as we have seen from, well, most of human history, often, people are taken advantage of in a vulnerable position. Although you mention that the onus should be on the politicians, which I agree with, who is going to pressure them? The electorate they are currently deceiving and have on their side? Or the people who actually know better, who have a greater capacity to control government and invoke positive change?

Assuming that we are still talking about the United States government (and neglecting systems such as direct democracy in Switzerland), I believe it's a little unfair to simply assume that much of it has to do with political literacy. I do not think political literacy has much to do with how badly electorates can be deceived by politicians. Consider, for example, the 2012 recall election of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker: The people were sick enough of him to demand a recall election, yet after six months of Republicans funding Walker from largely out-of-state ($30 million, in fact, which apparently shows that political parties are willing to spend as much money to keep one of theirs in office as the military pays for five M-1 Abrams tanks), Walker won the election with a 6.8% lead. Sure, it's an American state (sorry, taking a potshot at the American hick stereotype), but Wisconsin isn't exactly a backwater, redneck, Bible Belt state; this is supposed to be one of the better-educated, more well-off states. But $30 million is a big number, and that perhaps is the greatest problem.

The problem isn't so much that there is great political illiteracy as much as there's a system in place that actively allows people to cheat and slander. More importantly, the problem is how badly we let ourselves be affected by bipartisan politics. Sure, it's really embarrassing when people don't know about the checks and balances between the three branches of governments, that the Large Hadron Collider wasn't paid for by American taxpayers because it's located in Switzerland (and France) as opposed to the U.S., or how the electoral college worked. But do you think, for example, that these people will vote much more differently than they had before once they were informed of such? Will knowledge about the electoral college, of checks and balances, of current issues, or that the LHC hasn't been paid for with American taxpayer money will stop a redneck from the Bible Belt to insist that Obama is, in fact, totally a Fascist socialist Muslim terrorist®?

The fact of the matter is that we've got a lot more to worry about than the political literacy of the voters. We have to worry about the fact that we still use the Electoral College, an antiquated system that still values states over people and gives some states more votes (or less) than it rightfully should. We have to worry about the fact that only twenty-four states have laws that punish faithless electors (the people who basically ignore the votes of the people in their state and cast an Electoral College vote for someone else instead). We have to worry about political parties spending as much as five M-1 Abrams battle tanks to keep one guy in office for a few more years. Our problem isn't so much that our voters are broken as much as our system itself is broken.

The system is so impossibly screwed-up that this is not something we can simply just say "well, let's let only the politically-literate vote and it will be fine". It won't be. The first step we're going to have to take is to fix the system. And with the way the American political system is set up, it's not going to happen anytime soon, because the reality of the matter is that Americans have one of the worst systems that represent the people ever. Voters elect a politician into office...and that's it, actually. You'll just have to cross your fingers and hope he ever actually adheres to his campaign promises. And if he doesn't, there's not a lot of recourse. Twenty-three states have no referendums or initiatives (while four more states have only either referendums or initiatives), meaning - for 46% of the entire country by states - all the political decision-making is in the hands of elected officials who - after lying their way in - are entirely unaccountable for the promises they have once made, save perhaps a recall election. Citizens in 46% of the country cannot repeal passed laws or suggest new laws by popular vote; the only thing that can do with popular votes is vote for a man who may or may not mean what he's saying. The result, obviously, is that politicians will liberally make promises he can't keep, knowing that the only way the people could ever change his political agenda is via recall election, but that's okay; his party will spend five M-1 Abrams battle tanks on him.

None of this is preventable by preventing the less politically-literate from voting. This problem is inherent in the system, not the people. No matter how savvy voters become with politics, so long as the system accommodates and encourages lying, politicians will lie to get into office.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I must ask: how can someone with very limited political, economic, and historical knowledge make a good choice on issues which can have very small, but compounding and far reaching consequences across nations, economies, and millions of people? How do they really know what they need? This speaks to the point you finished with: that they don't even know they are being lied to. After all, how would they? So I say, how can they know what is good for them beyond simple things like "feed me". There are more complicated issues at hand -- how do we get the food? Pay for it? Maintain it? Transport it? Etc.

The idea behind a democracy is not that every single person understands all the issues that plague a country, but that every man and his interests are represented. While it'd be great if everyone understood the trends and needs of the country, it's the job of the politicians to get the big picture, not the voters. The voters are, in fact, the ones responsible for giving the politicians the smaller pictures that comprise of the big picture, telling elected leaders of what the population feels about certain issues at the moment. When the garbage man that never graduated from middle school has a say in democracy, I don't want to hear what he thinks the country thinks it needs as a whole; I want to know what he thinks about his social position, his job, his family so that when I make the "Big Picture Decision", I can include the rights of the garbage man as well. He doesn't need to understand politics, governance, or economics to tell his leaders, "Hey, just so you know, our wages are totally whacked, and I'm going to have to start borrowing from the bank in three months if you guys don't start getting your act together." I need to know this kind of information; I get enough about "how to solve the recession" from everyone else already. Government leaders are the ones that need to figure out what's best for those millions. And, to do that, they need to know each and every one of those million votes look like when deciding policy, whether it's through voting for an elected official or pushing forth an initiative/referendum that doesn't exist in twenty-three states.

No politician is going to perfectly represent every issue. Between whether there's actually being a concrete definition of what's politically prudent, there's also matters of belief; a lot of these things have no clear answers. The idea of a democracy is that the government must bow to the will of the people, even if - frankly - the will of the people is actually kind of remarkably stupid. That's why the point of voting is to select a politicians who's promises (that he can easily break after getting into office, but let's just ignore that for now) are in line with more of what Americans want on a large variety of issues. It's not a perfect system, but until the United States is more willing to give its people more say in the government and the freedom it claims it has, this situation isn't going to change. All of us will be lied to, regardless of how "politically-literate" we are.

The only real way I can see any of this working out well is if we adopt a system of direct democracy (by which a test would prevent mob rule or the tyranny of the majority), or if we simply come out as an oligarchy (which isn't inherently a bad thing, but there's the backlash to worry about). Either way, I consider fixing the system to be so much more important than trying to figure out who is the most politically-equipped to vote. ^_^;

Although, yes, it's a tragedy that people who have access to education yet make the most uninformed decisions, such as Southern Californian frat gir- *shot*

Originally Posted by Ysionris

Our problem isn't so much that our voters are broken as much as our system itself is broken.

The system is so impossibly screwed-up that this is not something we can simply just say "well, let's let only the politically-literate vote and it will be fine". It won't be. The first step we're going to have to take is to fix the system. And with the way the American political system is set up, it's not going to happen anytime soon, because the reality of the matter is that Americans have one of the worst systems that represent the people ever. Voters elect a politician into office...and that's it, actually. You'll just have to cross your fingers and hope he ever actually adheres to his campaign promises. And if he doesn't, there's not a lot of recourse. Twenty-three states have no referendums or initiatives (while four more states have only either referendums or initiatives), meaning - for 46% of the entire country by states - all the political decision-making is in the hands of elected officials who - after lying their way in - are entirely unaccountable for the promises they have once made, save perhaps a recall election. Citizens in 46% of the country cannot repeal passed laws or suggest new laws by popular vote; the only thing that can do with popular votes is vote for a man who may or may not mean what he's saying. The result, obviously, is that politicians will liberally make promises he can't keep, knowing that the only way the people could ever change his political agenda is via recall election, but that's okay; his party will spend five M-1 Abrams battle tanks on him.

None of this is preventable by preventing the less politically-literate from voting. This problem is inherent in the system, not the people. No matter how savvy voters become with politics, so long as the system accommodates and encourages lying, politicians will lie to get into office.

While I didn't make it explicit in many of my posts -- aside from my emphasis on education in parallel with such a policy, I want to note that I don't consider this a end-all-be-all solution to the problems of the country; rather, I see it as a way to aid in the solving of a large problem -- a dishonest government. It absolutely requires more than that alone -- namely education.

You're absolutely right, it is a problem in the system -- though, I would say ingrained, not inherent. There are good men in a system which is vulnerable to abuses. Really, the societal factors which caused men to abandon principle and virtue, or forgo it completely, ultimately set us on this path (really, this is the case for almost any societal issue). It all stems back to what is happening to shape said person when they are most malleable. This is why I also support parenting tests and birth control (but that is another thread).

However, when it is the lies that are popular, and the deception that controls the masses who control elections, what are the enlightened among the sheep to do? Wait?

No politician is going to perfectly represent every issue. Between whether there's actually being a concrete definition of what's politically prudent, there's also matters of belief; a lot of these things have no clear answers. The idea of a democracy is that the government must bow to the will of the people, even if - frankly - the will of the people is actually kind of remarkably stupid. That's why the point of voting is to select a politicians who's promises (that he can easily break after getting into office, but let's just ignore that for now) are in line with more of what Americans want on a large variety of issues. It's not a perfect system, but until the United States is more willing to give its people more say in the government and the freedom it claims it has, this situation isn't going to change. All of us will be lied to, regardless of how "politically-literate" we are.

The only real way I can see any of this working out well is if we adopt a system of direct democracy (by which a test would prevent mob rule or the tyranny of the majority), or if we simply come out as an oligarchy (which isn't inherently a bad thing, but there's the backlash to worry about). Either way, I consider fixing the system to be so much more important than trying to figure out who is the most politically-equipped to vote. ^_^;

Although, yes, it's a tragedy that people who have access to education yet make the most uninformed decisions, such as Southern Californian frat gir- *shot*

See, I don't think people require a voice to have their voice heard, though. While sure, someone may be qualified to vote over another, that doesn't stop the less informed person from expressing concern about their own life. The difference is, the more enlightened person/politician is in a better position to invoke the best positive change for that person as they would know what other issues are involved in making this persons life better. This is especially true of things related to economic issues, where it is very hard to pin down a solution to a financial problem an individual may face. In this respect, I find the opinions of the masses to be quite dangerous to the future of an economy. As you said, they can be remarkably stupid.

The idea is to get even better and more informed/educated candidates alongside a more educated and informed electorate.

On that note, I don't think a government should carry out remarkably stupid ideas held by the populace. If the populace wanted to nuke insert Middle Eastern country here because of 9/11, I would greatly desire the government and elected officials to understand how utterly dumb and pointless that would be, not carry out such lunacy. Though, I do understand your point, what is the limit before we must say, "No, the officials should not carry such a thing out, even though it is willed by most people."?

Really, I merely see this as a way to fix the system, and keep it fixed, too. Most people (at least in America) already don't vote -- why is it a huge deal to make that number smaller, but not "elite" smaller?

And yes, it is a tragedy -- but a failure of the system. After all, if someone hasn't been taught how to learn, they can't facilitate the acquisition of such knowledge alone.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

However, when it is the lies that are popular, and the deception that controls the masses who control elections, what are the enlightened among the sheep to do? Wait?

I think a good question we should ask is "how much do our problems really link back to political literacy". The hot button issues we have in the U.S. today actually have very little to do about how much one understands about governance and politics. Abortion, contraception, birth control, and women's health care? That's dependent on your understanding of biology and - for some - religion. Gun rights? Criminology and psychology, largely. The economy? Economics, finances, and corporate governance. Immigration? Economics and criminology again, and maybe some business management. Religious freedom? Constitutional and international law. Whether or not Obama is a socialist fascist Muslim terrorist®? I...don't think I can help you there. x_x

The issue here is that very little that I've mentioned here has much to do with politics as much as it has something to do with specific academic fields, and these fields have experts - people who have impressive degrees after spending years studying for them - who can't even agree on whether austerity measures or increased spending is better for the national economy. So unless you want to go even further with voting control and say "only persons qualified in these particular fields may vote on decisions of that particular field", I don't see how "political literacy tests" are going to help much. Not to mention the fact that 46% of the country don't have referendums anyways, so it's not as if experts in that field actually have any say in the matter if you belong to one of those twenty-three states. >_>

I admit I do not have many good solutions for this. The best option, of course, is increasing the level of education in the country, but I think both of us know how ridiculously difficult that is, especially when a sizable amount of the country rejects the most basic of scientific facts (often tying into fields of biology, physics, and theology, but - again - not politics). I'm not even mentioning how much of an omni-disciplinarian or polymath one must be to be able to make very informed decision on the amount of hot topics in U.S. politics. Even then, we must accept a level of democracy that we are not comfortable with; even Switzerland - a country known for its commitment to human rights and the law, and its high educational standards - passed a ban on minarets via referendum that was largely inspired by little other than Islamophobia.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

See, I don't think people require a voice to have their voice heard, though. While sure, someone may be qualified to vote over another, that doesn't stop the less informed person from expressing concern about their own life. The difference is, the more enlightened person/politician is in a better position to invoke the best positive change for that person as they would know what other issues are involved in making this persons life better. This is especially true of things related to economic issues, where it is very hard to pin down a solution to a financial problem an individual may face. In this respect, I find the opinions of the masses to be quite dangerous to the future of an economy. As you said, they can be remarkably stupid.

And that is why we wish for intelligent, enlightened people to be in office. Remember, unless we are willing to completely rehaul the politics and legal systems of the United States, the citizenry will never be able to do much beyond trusting a man running for office who has no obligation to honor his campaign promises. Even if we have enlightened, intelligent voters, they are incapable of changing issues directly, and the indirect method will be reliant on how well they can discern whether or not a candidate is a complete liar, a difficult proposition at best given how much money is spent into campaign advertisements and other forms of propaganda every election year. If we use only our system, the only thing we can do is encourage more intelligent and enlightened people to run for office, because - honestly - the collective intelligence of the voters in the United States has very, very little to do with what policies are ultimately churned out. The only way we can change anything if we maintain our current system is to constantly vote our politicians who do not enact the policies we need...and given how many opinions there are in decision - some of them quite valid - it's going to be an impossibly uphill battle.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

The idea is to get even better and more informed/educated candidates alongside a more educated and informed electorate.

Agreed. However, more importantly is the question of how willing we are to change our political systems to accommodate that, whether we're willing to invest in a representative democracy which may deter mob rule/tyranny of the majority or in a direct democracy in which the people might actually have a direct say.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

On that note, I don't think a government should carry out remarkably stupid ideas held by the populace. If the populace wanted to nuke insert Middle Eastern country here because of 9/11, I would greatly desire the government and elected officials to understand how utterly dumb and pointless that would be, not carry out such lunacy. Though, I do understand your point, what is the limit before we must say, "No, the officials should not carry such a thing out, even though it is willed by most people."?

Pretty much~ ^_^;

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Really, I merely see this as a way to fix the system, and keep it fixed, too. Most people (at least in America) already don't vote -- why is it a huge deal to make that number smaller, but not "elite" smaller?

I'd largely agree - I'm a bit of an ends-justify-means person - but the problem is that I don't think political literacy tests would help at all bar a completely new democratic system (or, conversely, a fusion between a meritocracy and an oligarchy, which is actually a political system that I have fantasized about when I was younger). If we are going to recognize that we are a democratic nation, however, some rights simply cannot be taken away, and the right to vote is a pretty inalienable right if you wish for a democracy. I'd again argue that the vote actually amounts to very little, but that's really not going to help much. I think the only real thing we can do within reason and within our current political system is to improve the standard of education to the point where no matter who runs for office, all candidates come from a pool of reasonable, well-educated, and rational individuals. ^_^;

How on earth could a more politically intelligent person know what's best for anyone else, more than the person themself would? This sounds like unbridled arrogance. I wouldn't want anyone like that near a voting booth.

What would people think of this -

a more direct form of governance where laws are more often voted upon by the PEOPLE as opposed to representatives, MANDATED voting but a requirement of being able to pass a basic literacy test which is comparable to the current citizenship exam.

For the record, my roommate from China passed a practice exam after 1 month of studying and he's not even 100% fluent in English

@ Andross;

Reading your post I am somewhat confused, are you a Anarchist;

Rule is bad.

Or a Technocrat;

I'd rather those others be composed of scientists, engineers, philosophers and intellectuals

?

Anarchy is what I prefer, but if it comes down to either democracy or uneven technocracy (I say "uneven" because in a stable anarchy, everyone would be an intellectual; call it "anarcho-technocracy," if you prefer), then I would take technocracy. I hate being ruled, but I especially hate being ruled by the stupid.

---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

Originally Posted by mattj

How on earth could a...person know what's best for anyone else, more than the person themself would?

Hence anarchism. Welcome aboard, comrade.

Anarchy is what I prefer, but if it comes down to either democracy or uneven technocracy (I say "uneven" because in a stable anarchy, everyone would be an intellectual; call it "anarcho-technocracy," if you prefer), then I would take technocracy. I hate being ruled, but I especially hate being ruled by the stupid.

How do you suppose we make everyone intellectual?

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

How do you suppose we make everyone intellectual?

Abandoning capitalism (A system that requires an uneven distribution of intellect), improving education (No dodging evolutionary biology in public schools because "it's a theory" (Anecdotally, it was not until college that evolution was regularly discussed in a biology course; I'm sorry, but if you don't believe in evolution then you should NOT be teaching biology), teaching logic and proper debate skills, higher expectations of mathematics, and not watering down history to the point that it's useless going into a college-level course; it's pretty obvious that American public schools engineer kids to be stupid and apathetic toward achieving higher education), etc.

I wouldn't mind anarchy either. especially since I found out years ago that anarchy does not equal chaos and destruction. Though I'm not totally oppose to a governmental system either. Unfortunaley nothing is flawless.

Originally Posted by Andross

Abandoning capitalism (A system that requires an uneven distribution of intellect), improving education (No dodging evolutionary biology in public schools because "it's a theory" (Anecdotally, it was not until college that evolution was regularly discussed in a biology course; I'm sorry, but if you don't believe in evolution then you should NOT be teaching biology), teaching logic and proper debate skills, higher expectations of mathematics, and not watering down history to the point that it's useless going into a college-level course; it's pretty obvious that American public schools engineer kids to be stupid and apathetic toward achieving higher education), etc.

are you a proponent of Lysenkoism?

Generally speaking, so long as people are attaining sufficient nutrition(The American obesity epidemic suggests we usually are or are at least capable should better decisions be made) isn't a huge issue and people are able to get a reasonable amount of rest, there's little reason why anyone shouldn't be capable of being intellectually competent.

No Excuse List

We have a free library system in this wretched capitalistic nation and a tablet capable of reading most of this information in. Many past arguments about education and knowledge being restricted to a moneyed elite are no longer valid and many of our social maladies are now sociologically moreso than politically caused.

I'm just waiting for standardized testing to become valued for a number of professions as a way of ranking employees. Like the MCAT, GMAT, or GRE but with specialized questions(google BAT, it's finance oriented)

Voting amongst the less intelligent is one of those topics which I think is always going to provoke a significant amount of thought, and much like Ysionris, I've done some significant fence-sitting on the matter, but in the end I think you have to come down on the side of universal voting. There's a strong point to be made that even the question itself (what is "less intellectual" in reference to voting?) is flawed, but beyond that there're some powerful reasons why we should not restrict voting in such a way; ranging from the fact that, while it may appear a contradiction, including the "less intelligent" in a decision-making process actually increases the quality of the decisions; and the fact that by including the "less intelligent" in the decision-making process we provide an incredibly important incentive for the "more intelligent" to improve their lot.

The first point that can be made is purely mathematical. Assume for a moment that intelligence simply measures how likely you are to be right on any given issue, where all issues can be treated as the same, and where right is treated as the option with the best consequences, again ignoring the fact that people may disagree on what consequences qualify as best. Someone with 0.8 intelligence is 80% likely to be right on a given question, someone with 0.51 is 51% likely, and so on. If we take the argument "it is always better to be ruled by the more intelligent than the less intelligent" to be always true, then we should say that we'd rather be ruled by one person of 90% intelligence than a collective of 5,000 people of 51% intelligence. That may initially seem an attractive prospect, right? I mean, why would anyone want to be ruled by a group of people who each only have a 51% chance of being right, when there's that guy who is right 90% of the time? In fact, if you carry the argument to its logical conclusion, this argument says that we should all consent to be ruled by a single extremely intelligent benevolent dictator.

Turns out, the maths is against this apparently intuitive notion. The chance of 2,501 people (i.e., a majority) out of a group of 5,000 reaching the right decision is 92.3%! That's better than that single 0.9 intelligence guy. You can try this yourself with a basic binomial probability calculator. This tells you something pretty important straight off the bat, and that is that sometimes, numbers are better than sheer brain. So, straight away, we've gone from "always the more intelligent" to "in certain circumstances, intelligence is preferred". There are still some caveats, though. The first is the people with a less than 0.5 intelligence will actually still always damage the decision making process. Surely this is where the above argument about restricting the vote comes in?

Well, that means we need to look at the flaws of the assumptions in that basic model above. Let's look at the first flaw, which goes to the notion that you can measure intelligence in such a manner! The very first thing you have to challenge is whether we're posing these tests based on intelligence, or knowledge. Would you rather have a voter who is perhaps not the fastest to pick up any given notion, and not the greatest at spotting logical flaws in an argument, but has read every economics textbook this side of the sun; or a voter who, given the materials, would be an economic genius, but has never picked up the slightest bit of economics knowledge in his life? This has big repercussions for the testing process. Are you going to have something like an end of year school test, which would let in the first guy but not the second, or are you going to have something like an IQ test, which lets in the second guy but not the first?

Both have problems. The knowledgeable but dim voter could be great on his one specific subject, and awful elsewhere, and the intelligent but poorly informed voter could be reasonably adequate on a wide range of subject, but incapable of excellence on any given subject. Arguably, the knowledgeable but dim voter should only be allowed to vote on his specific subject. Do we create different voting tests for different votes? Is there an economic test that creates a bar for voting on economics, but a separate and different bar on ethical morality that creates a bar for voting on abortion? The level of complication required seems so immense that I suspect very few would recommend different tests for different votes. I suspect (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that every single person arguing that voting should be restricted to the intelligent would argue for a single standardised test. This means that test will by its very nature strip out the specialists, fantastic at one specific subject but mediocre at others, and in doing so deprive us of some very important input. That's already a huge problem with the test: there is no one "knowledgeable" in every single area. Life is full of variety. Going to the test above, that may mean there are people who have 0.99 chance of making the right decisions on matters related to say finance, then 0.1 chance on everything else. Or, to more directly counter some examples provided earlier, there may be someone who is entirely illiterate, but knows more about house building and thus what should be the standard regulations for constructing safer houses than any literate man. Do we include or exclude?

So, some people might counter that knowledge isn't important. Intelligent voters will be able to work out for themselves that they will improve their situation if they make more informed votes; and as such, voting should be based purely on intelligence, where intelligence is defined as the ability to use logical deduction - that is, something that could be measured with a test akin to the IQ test. They'd argue it doesn't matter if the knowledgeable but dim get ruled out, as all that is important is the intelligent. Sadly, I don't this argument stands up to much inspection. The ability of the apparently intelligent to refuse the wisdom imparted to them has birthed more sorrow than history should have to bear. Intelligence does not mean freedom from arrogance or over-confidence. So, we've reached a problem again.

But I accept this is still not a sufficient counter-argument. People could argue that either the stripping out the specialist knowledgeable but dim in exchange for the universally fairly dim is a worthwhile trade-off. Similarly, people could argue the intelligent but uninformed is a worthwhile trade-off for stripping out the dim but uninformed. Both of these arguments have strong moral counter-arguments, but I'll come to those at the end. For now, all it's important to know is that any single test you devise is going to have "false negatives" - people who on a given issue, if allowed to vote, would actually improve the chances of the vote being decided "correctly", ending up being not allowed to vote. That's an essentially unavoidable part of the process.

So, now to tackle the argument that trade-off is worthwhile. Well, here's the kicker. The modes above assumed voters were entirely independent - that presence of one voter didn't affect the "intelligence" of another voter. That's an incredibly dangerous assumption to make, and one that has led to yes-men throughout history condoning disaster. A little historical anecdote, if you may: on a cold and frankly rather miserable evening in February, two gentlemen walked into the Eagle, a (rather good) pub near Cambridge. After ordering a round of drinks, one of those gentlemen announced that he had discovered the secret of life. They'd not actually been drinking (yet); this was Watson and Crick in 1953 just after discovering the double-helix structure of DNA. Watson went on to discuss the reasons why he and Crick had discovered this. Surprisingly, the first reason he listed was that he and Crick had decoded DNA's structure first because they were not the most intelligent. He described the most intelligent person of the time as the British scientist (they're all British, we're cool like that) Rosalind Franklin. To quote; "Rosalind was so intelligent she rarely sought advice. And if you're the brightest person in the room, then you're in trouble."

Now, I'll move on from the anecdote before someone complains about anecdotal evidence, and move on to the fact. Behavioural scientists Patrick Laughlin showed that the approaches and outcomes of a group working together towards a solution are not just better than that of the average member working alone, but also exceed the group's best problem-solver working alone. Lone decision-makers cannot match the diversity of knowledge and perspectives of a multi-person unit with themselves included. It may seem bizarre, the addition of a person, even a person who is likely to be wrong, increases the chance the collective will reach the right answer. This blows the earlier proposition put forth by the mathematical model out of the water. They provide the very best devil's advocate possible - a devil's advocate who believes what they're putting forward. Having to test your ideas against them is crucial. The strength of a proposition rests in how well you can defend it against alternatives. If you restrict the alternatives, you may never find some crucial weaknesses! Going back to the earlier model, that means the idea that everyone has an independent chance of coming to the right answer is wrong entirely.

So, let's examine some other arguments, these more based on morality than direct consequences. The first is goes all the way back to our decision of what "right" is! Sometimes, there is no "right" answer. For example, I base my morality system on a modified form of utilitarianism. Someone else may prefer a deontological system. Neither of us is right or wrong (provided you are a moral relativist. Yet another source of dispute!). As such, a decision that could be right for me may be very wrong indeed for someone else! So, given our test to bar voting is essentially there to block who have a strong chance of making "wrong" decisions, how can we possibly even conduct such a test when we can't decide between right and wrong? The next argument goes back to the "false negatives" mentioned above. With any test you use, any single test, there will be a moment when someone who is likely to provide a correct decision will be denied. What you have to tell them is that their ability to be self-determinant (something I believe most people value) is to be denied for "the greater good" - even though on this issue they would not damage the greater good at all. It seems a remarkably difficult argument to make. "Because you weren't viewed to be sufficiently informed on recent history, we're not going to let you vote on agricultural subsidies and regulations." Not exactly the fairest proposition.

There's even more, though, out of sight is out of mind. If you truly worry that some people, through lack of knowledge or poor intelligence, are having an impact on your future, then that provides you a big incentive to try and improve their lot; to put effort into renovating schools and placing a higher incentive on teachers. Making them better citizens doesn't just help them, it also helps you! There's a big worry that if the dim and uninformed have absolutely no way to influence events, then the bright and informed (who pretty much have life sorted anyway, in terms of going on to get good jobs and decent salaries) can ignore them. Why should they help, other than hopefully altruism? By tying everyone together and making everyone interdependent, we provide a reason for people to try and help each other. That is critically important, especially in nations like the United States where the disconnect is becoming increasingly large between the haves and the have nots. This why revolutions happen throughout history - the French aristocrats ignoring the urban poor, the British aristocrats ignoring the American nouveau riche, the Russian tsars ignoring the proletariat.

Finally, throughout all this, we've been pretending that the tests will be conducted fairly and in good faith. As history has shown (and as mattj has been pointing out), any barrier to vote can become an incredibly powerful weapon in the hands of those in charge of it. Look at any map of American electoral districts, particularly battleground states. I mean, what on earth is going with Ohio? Geographically and socio-culturally incoherent lines savaged across a political map in the hope of the tiniest sliver of advantage. Even if people don't abuse them in such an openly racist way as the last time they were implemented in the United States in particular, they will still be abused for political advantage. You may laugh about the possibility of questions like "Is Obama a communist Muslim fascist?" where candidates are barred from voting if they answer No, but then you take a look at the educational curriculum in Texas and suddenly the joke looks rather frightening.

Overall, the arguments in favour of the universal vote just seem to strong. It may be an initially attractive position to restrict it from the unwashed masses, but the advantages of a larger voting pool, the inclusion of valuable specialists, the advantages of collective decision making, the prevention of myopia on behalf of the intelligent, the avoidance of false negatives, and preventing such a weapon falling open to political advantage, plus that all important incentive for society to work together, just seem to outweigh the notion that every now and again we might stop Scott Walker ending up back in office.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

Now, I'll move on from the anecdote before someone complains about anecdotal evidence, and move on to the fact. Behavioural scientists Patrick Laughlin showed that the approaches and outcomes of a group working together towards a solution are not just better than that of the average member working alone, but also exceed the group's best problem-solver working alone. Lone decision-makers cannot match the diversity of knowledge and perspectives of a multi-person unit with themselves included. It may seem bizarre, the addition of a person, even a person who is likely to be wrong, increases the chance the collective will reach the right answer. This blows the earlier proposition put forth by the mathematical model out of the water. They provide the very best devil's advocate possible - a devil's advocate who believes what they're putting forward. Having to test your ideas against them is crucial. The strength of a proposition rests in how well you can defend it against alternatives. If you restrict the alternatives, you may never find some crucial weaknesses!

Devil's Advocate Time~ X3

/me dusts off DA hat; hasn't been used for a long time. ^_^;

[devilsadvocate]Variety and diversity in problem solving sounds great in theory, but one of the problems with this example is that it takes place under controlled circumstances in which people are 1) invested into solving a problem, 2) capable of initiating a diverse discussion, 3) willing to participate in discussions in a civil manner. But, at least in the United States, 1) voter turnout is averaged at 48%, meaning only half a group even cares to put any effort into problem-solving, 2) there are insufficient swing states, and voters are often isolated into heavily liberal/conservative communities that act largely as echo chambers as opposed to any forum of active political discussion, and 3) polarization of politics have generated what has effectively amounted to uncivil insults being tossed back and forth between both voters and the politicians they elect. Perhaps it's a little naive to assume that we can achieve such perfect conditions of diverse decision-making in an actual voting environment? ^_^;[/devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by Ysionris

Devil's Advocate Time~ X3

/me dusts off DA hat; hasn't been used for a long time. ^_^;

[devilsadvocate]Variety and diversity in problem solving sounds great in theory, but one of the problems with this example is that it takes place under controlled circumstances in which people are 1) invested into solving a problem, 2) capable of initiating a diverse discussion, 3) willing to participate in discussions in a civil manner. But, at least in the United States, 1) voter turnout is averaged at 48%, meaning only half a group even cares to put any effort into problem-solving, 2) there are insufficient swing states, and voters are often isolated into heavily liberal/conservative communities that act largely as echo chambers as opposed to any forum of active political discussion, and 3) polarization of politics have generated what has effectively amounted to uncivil insults being tossed back and forth between both voters and the politicians they elect. Perhaps it's a little naive to assume that we can achieve such perfect conditions of diverse decision-making in an actual voting environment? ^_^;[/devilsadvocate]

I absolutely agree with what you say. However, the points you've made (voter turnout is poor, insufficient swing states leading to cloistered communities, and polarization of politics; and thus collective decision making does not function properly) have absolutely nothing to do with the intelligence of voters and everything to do with an incredibly poorly designed political system which has left the United States with possibly the worst functioning executive and legislative of any major developed nation (possibly Italy takes the no.1 spot, but the United States is a heavy-weight competitor). Rather than attempting to solve the problem by getting rid of unintelligent voters on the basis they may do harm in a system which can't cope even with intelligent voters, you could just... fix the system.

Well restricting voting to only those who actually know what they're talking about is attempting to solve the problem. Of course this isn't the only problem within the system, and a voting test isn't going to make a system perfect, but it's an idea worth looking at.

Originally Posted by Chad

Well restricting voting to only those who actually know what they're talking about is attempting to solve the problem. Of course this isn't the only problem within the system, and a voting test isn't going to make a system perfect, but it's an idea worth looking at.

The problem, well, one of the problems, is that voter tests have traditionally been used to keep disadvantaged minorities (Ex-Slaves, Immigrants, The poor, etc) from voting. Just because you aren't educated doesn't mean you can't know enough to vote responsibly.

You'd also need a test that was in no-way biased and that relied solely on one's political knowledge. How would that work? What questions could you possibly ask?