Required IQ to vote?

[MisterMike]

Yesterday, Ted Rall writes:

"Voting should be a privilege earned by an intellectually engaged citizen, not a right given to any adult with a pulse."


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&e=5&u=/ucru/triumphofthestultocracy


With all the hoorah about blacks being blocked from voting, this is on par with "keep them thar rednecks outta the booths."

Should there be a limitation on who votes other than by age or felon status?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Of course not. The whole point is that the collective wisdom of citizens is superior to mere knowledge and reason...yeah, I wonder too.

But I was more interested in Mr. Rall's examples of dumbassery: the first (why'd he pick two women, when Dan Quayle's still running around loose, I wonder?) was a woman who insisted that unlike John Kerry, Bush is Just Plain Folks and somebody who understood the Common Man; the second was some dorfy Democrat who bought the Big Lie that Iraq was behind 9/11--a Big Lie which has been perpetrated by the present Administration in all sorts of ways.

However--the last thing you want, believe me, is a society in which us intellectual PhD types run everything. Rall could've easily written a column on the dumbassery of the intellectual elite--Robert MacNamara comes immediately to mind. Or there's that loonbox Edward Teller, Dr. Strangelove himself...

We have, unfortunately, a long history of having some of the worst moves in American history shoved down everybody's throat by intellectuals...even though I tend to think that if they were REAL brains, they wouldn't do dumb crap like get us into Vietnam...

 

[Spud]

I'm more concerned about the IQ of the candidates' than the voters.

We had a little revolution in 1776 regarding taxation without representation. We going to purge the dummies from the tax roles under Ted's model?

 

[Cryozombie]

Yesterday, Ted Rall writes:

"Voting should be a privilege earned by an intellectually engaged citizen, not a right given to any adult with a pulse."

Isn't that mentality is how the electoral college got to choose who our president was instead of the people...?

 

[Melissa426]

Doesn't this smack of Orwell's "1984?"

"Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others?"

So who is gonna be in charge of determining which of us are intellectually engaged enough to be allowed to vote? How will that be proved?

Where does it stop after that?

It also reminds me of the Jim Crow laws of the pre Civil Rights era South, only instead of prohibiting Blacks, we are gonna go after those who are not considered "smart enough."

It's abhorrent, IMHO.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[Feisty Mouse]

So who is gonna be in charge of determining which of us are intellectually engaged enough to be allowed to vote? How will that be proved?

Same problem when the eugenics movement has revivals - it's deeply disturbing to have one group of people agree on who should and should not be allowed to vote, let alone reproduce.

I've met several self-important PhDs who are arrogant sumbitches and, I think, don't spend much time learning about politics. Of course, I've met non-PhDs who are just the same, just get their self-importance from somewhere else.

So no, I think it's a bad idea.

 

[pete]

maybe the same test should be used to see who gets drafted or has to pay income taxes...

or maybe, those that don't pass the test can elect their own president

this comes from a man whose daughter thinks the food pyramid is a government conspiracy to de-ethnicitize america through its diet...

 

[Brother John]

"Voting should be a privilege earned by an intellectually engaged citizen, not a right given to any adult with a pulse."

If you have a pulse, are an American and aren't a felon: You have the right to vote. That's as it should be.
We get the representation we deserve.

Your Brother
John

 

[michaeledward]

Should there be a limitation on who votes other than by age or felon status?

Doesn't restricting citizens who have been convicted of a felony from voting (after they have served sentence) punishing the convicted twice for the same crime?

Incidentally, MisterMike, those who administer your enlightened state recognize that even citizens who have committed a crime, been convicted, and are serving sentence are entitled to be represented from the ballot box.

Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont and Utah all allow those serving time to vote.

Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia and Wyoming apparently do not know the meaning of 'double-jeopardy'.

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o.htm#FELONY

 

[MisterMike]

If you have a pulse, are an American and aren't a felon: You have the right to vote. That's as it should be.
We get the representation we deserve.

Your Brother
John

Agreed. :asian:

 

[MisterMike]

Doesn't this smack of Orwell's "1984?"

"Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others?"

So who is gonna be in charge of determining which of us are intellectually engaged enough to be allowed to vote? How will that be proved?

It's abhorrent, IMHO.

Peace,
Melissa

Sounds like ol' Ted Rall would like to step up to the plate.

 

[Cryozombie]

Doesn't restricting citizens who have been convicted of a felony from voting (after they have served sentence) punishing the convicted twice for the same crime?

I'll tell ya what my only fear here is...

if its AFTER they serve their sentence, then ok... I have no problem with this... I'm in agreement with you that they should have their rights restored...

But I fear that if we allow incarcerated felons to vote... Certain unscrupulous polititions might use a similar platform to get their votes that they use for illegal aliens... "I will grant you amnesty" in exchange for their votes...

If they do it for immigrants who break the law, why not car theives and muggers?

THAT'S what would worry me.