National Dunce Day Discussion Thread

[Booyakasha]

^Oh, pish. What's to say what counts as an idiot.

Beautiful thing about America is that one (conjecturally) doesn't get more say in government based on race, creed, sex, ethnicity or anything else. I got a Downs co-worker who is probably the straight-shootin-est person I've ever met. Be a cold day in hell before I thought he deserved less of a say just because he has an extra cross to bear.

[I am nobody]

Merged with election thread because there was already significant EC discussion here.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

[QUOTE="Booyakasha, post: 1617467, member: 17381"]^Oh, pish. What's to say what counts as an idiot.

Beautiful thing about America is that one (conjecturally) doesn't get more say in government based on race, creed, sex, ethnicity or anything else. I got a Downs co-worker who is probably the straight-shootin-est person I've ever met. Be a cold day in hell before I thought he deserved less of a say just because he has an extra cross to bear.[/QUOTE]

We already have people who get less say, young people. If we discriminate based on age then intelligence is an even more reasonable qualifier.

[X-3]

If you're going to have a democracy, you're going to have a democracy. Enough disenfranchisement.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

I'd like to hear you elaborate on your train of thought a bit more.

[Booyakasha]

[QUOTE="I REALLY HATE PRESENTS!, post: 1617472, member: 18119"]We already have people who get less say, young people. If we discriminate based on age then intelligence is an even more reasonable qualifier.[/QUOTE]

The difference is that young people eventually become old enough to vote-----------presumably Downs people are never going to stop having Downs.

I'd like to know what makes a Downs guy's voice less worthy of being heard than anyone else's.

[X-3]

Restricting voting/weighing votes based on intelligence would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life. Not only that, it would only exacerbate the dominance of the wealthy and solidify social class structures.

It also sounds way too prone to subjectivity and political bias.

[Valigarmander]

Yeah, I think it's one of those ideas that's better on paper than in reality. Who exactly gets to decide who is intelligent enough? How could you design a system that wouldn't end up corrupt and self-serving?

I believe a better solution would be to produce an electorate that's more educated, more politically informed, better at fact-checking, less susceptible to fallacious arguments, etc.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

[QUOTE="Booyakasha, post: 1617476, member: 17381"]The difference is that young people eventually become old enough to vote-----------presumably Downs people are never going to stop having Downs.

I'd like to know what makes a Downs guy's voice less worthy of being heard than anyone else's.[/QUOTE]

That's skimming over the issue though. If we're priding ourselves on "nobody gets more say based on anything" then age should be included in that. Guy can be recruited into the military at 17 but not decide for himself who he wants running his country because he's less than half a year off from his date of birth? Yeah, not buying it. 18 is an arbitrary choice restricting people who should arguably be able to vote like anyone else, why make them wait? If there's a rationale for it then good but that just proves that if we have good reasons for discrimination then it's fine. Can't have it both ways, it sets an inescapable precedent. We'd have to abolish all such qualifiers if we're going to pretend more are automatically off the table.

As for why a person with less intelligence (mind you I probably wouldn't qualify to be in the upper echelon myself so I say this unbiasedly) shouldn't get as much say is because of how important deciding the president is (and yeah, I didn't vote haha). Important decisions should be made by intelligent people, pretty sure that's an agreeable assertion.

[QUOTE="X-3, post: 1617477, member: 27765"]Restricting voting/weighing votes based on intelligence would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life. Not only that, it would only exacerbate the dominance of the wealthy and solidify social class structures.

It also sounds way too prone to subjectivity and political bias.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how that would have anything to do with wealth. Money doesn't make you intelligent, it just lets apes wear designer clothes.

[QUOTE="Carol of the Vals, post: 1617479, member: 30663"]Yeah, I think it's one of those ideas that's better on paper than in reality. Who exactly gets to decide who is intelligent enough? How could you design a system that wouldn't end up corrupt and self-serving?

I believe a better solution would be to produce an electorate that's more educated, more politically informed, better at fact-checking, less susceptible to fallacious arguments, etc.[/QUOTE]

I don't know who would decide. As for corruption, isn't that already how politics is set-up? For one thing, if you're not rich like you can't fairly run. Sounds corrupt to me.

[X-3]

It's simple. Money gets you a better and longer education. It's not the only qualification for something as broad and ambiguous as intelligence, but it's a massive leg-up compared to someone who finishes High School but doesn't have the money for higher education. There's also miscellaneous resources that wealth gives, like consistent internet access.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

[QUOTE="X-3, post: 1617485, member: 27765"]It's simple. Money gets you a better and longer education. It's not the only qualification for something as broad and ambiguous as intelligence, but it's a massive leg-up compared to someone who finishes High School but doesn't have the money for higher education. There's also miscellaneous resources that wealth gives, like consistent internet access.[/QUOTE]

Education is completely separate from intelligence and any good test which could be enacted would be sure to clearly make such a distinction.

[I am nobody]

Intelligence is also largely separate from being able to make good decisions for a nation - someone can be the most classically intelligent person on the planet while still being a sociopath or not knowing anything about the world outside of their town.

[X-3]

While education is different from intelligence, the two are unmistakably linked. Under this hypothetical intelligence system, those that have studied economics, politics and/or law would automatically have a major advantage over everyone else in terms of vote weight.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

[QUOTE="I am nobody, post: 1617491, member: 34539"]Intelligence is also largely separate from being able to make good decisions for a nation - someone can be the most classically intelligent person on the planet while still being a sociopath or not knowing anything about the world outside of their town.[/QUOTE]

That's a good point.

[Random User]

Intelligence can be objectively measured via an IQ test, which is considered accurate and reliable by just about everyone in the psychological community. What's more, IQ scores don't really change a whole lot after you hit 8-10 years old. That being said, having a high intelligence quotient doesn't necessarily mean you are better-suited to making political decisions, but then that's the issue with democracy as a whole. You can never avoid that problem.

[CaptHayfever]

any good test which could be enacted would be sure to clearly make such a distinction.

any good test which could be enacted

any good test

Therein lies the problems:
a) Writing good tests requires somebody who knows how to write good tests (typically somebody with training in education and/or psychology, the exact opposite of the kind of people who typically call for voting tests).
b) The last time we had tests for eligibility to vote, they looked like this.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

[QUOTE="CaptHayfever, post: 1617533, member: 25169"]Therein lies the problems:
a) Writing good tests requires somebody who knows how to write good tests (typically somebody with training in education and/or psychology, the exact opposite of the kind of people who typically call for voting tests).
b) The last time we had tests for eligibility to vote, they looked like this.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"[/QUOTE]

What's the problem with #1 and I am too lazy to read through #2, what is the problem with it?

[Random User]

The test wording is contrived and measures nothing useful.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

So it's a bad test? The solution is to make a good one, then.

[CaptHayfever]

#1: The tests get written by people who either can't or won't do it right, & they end up being bad tests.
#2: It's a bad test. It's full of trick questions & convoluted, ambiguous instructions deliberately designed to work against a specific demographic.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"