Should intellectually unable people be denied to vote in person in elections, and instead have delegates vote for them?
R7494
2012/06/11 12:41:37
|
|
|||||
|
1 vote
|
|
3% | |||
|
38 votes
|
|
97% | |||
Upon reviewing the behaviour of many people in politics, more and more I find that I agree with Friedrich Nietzsche that there are clear levels of political intelligence. To be clear, when I use the term "intellectual", I am not referring to academia of universities or scholars, but I am referring to understanding of cultural, economical ethical, moral, political, and social elements of society; (there are more categories, but these are what are pertinent here). I believe that wise voting requires a high level of intellectual and am very concerned that voting by people with a low level of intellectual ability, may endanger themselves and others by the political consequences of their actions.
At one side there are people with a high level of intellectual ability who have the rational ability to comprehend problems, have the ethical ability to sympathize with other people, are able to understand the perspectives of views that they themselves are opposed to, and have the ability to compromise and negotiate to establish workable solutions through problem-solving.
At the other side there are people with a low level of intellectual ability who are irrational and either do not understand or are unwilling to learn the causes of problems; have low to no ethical ability either because of disability, mental illness, or are too disorganized or arrogant to have consistent ethics; are unable to understand the perspectives of views that they are opposed to and view them condescendingly based on rumours or uninformed opinions; and are unable to compromise and negotiate and demand only that it is their way or nothing.
It is true that there is a middle, but for the context of my question I choose a cut-off point of intellectual ability versus inability in terms of voting as being the issue of ethics and political understanding - if a person cannot have a rational and consistent set of ethics that are applicable both to themselves and other people; or is unable to understand the reasons, problems, and consequences, of political actions; then that is considered as tipping below the half-point for the level of intellectual ability that I believe is necessary for a person to vote.
To be clear, I am not saying that intellectual people as a whole are "superior" to non-intellectual people, but that intellectual people in terms of complex ethical-political traits are typically superior in qualification than non-intellectual people. And since elections involve complex issues, I believe a high level of intellectual ability is needed.
There are areas where intellectual ability alone is unacceptable for qualifications in other fields. For instance, a person with immense intellectual ability but without technical skill ability cannot and should not be an automobile mechanic. Moreover engineers typically require not only a significant level of intellectual ability, but also technical ability. I believe that in the workplace, there should be economic democracy to be determined by people who have the technical know-how of what their work entails along with a significant intellectual ability.
For those who are concerned that such a system would oppress the intellectually-unable, I say that there should be voluntary representatives with high intellectual ability, similar to competent legal representatives, to represent their concerns and offer advice to as well as warn them about political consequences and important political issues during election time and other times. By this I do not mean elected political representatives, but counselors. The counselors will listen to the concerns of those people and vote for them in elections. If a counselor is deemed to have deliberately violated the concerns of a person he/she represents, that person could appeal to a court to review the counselor's actions for wrongdoing and convict the counselor if they did, and have another counselor do a "re-vote" on behalf of that person.
I am sure that there are many flaws with the proposal I have made here, I consider myself to be above-average in intellectual ability, but I am far below a genius. What do others think?
At one side there are people with a high level of intellectual ability who have the rational ability to comprehend problems, have the ethical ability to sympathize with other people, are able to understand the perspectives of views that they themselves are opposed to, and have the ability to compromise and negotiate to establish workable solutions through problem-solving.
At the other side there are people with a low level of intellectual ability who are irrational and either do not understand or are unwilling to learn the causes of problems; have low to no ethical ability either because of disability, mental illness, or are too disorganized or arrogant to have consistent ethics; are unable to understand the perspectives of views that they are opposed to and view them condescendingly based on rumours or uninformed opinions; and are unable to compromise and negotiate and demand only that it is their way or nothing.
It is true that there is a middle, but for the context of my question I choose a cut-off point of intellectual ability versus inability in terms of voting as being the issue of ethics and political understanding - if a person cannot have a rational and consistent set of ethics that are applicable both to themselves and other people; or is unable to understand the reasons, problems, and consequences, of political actions; then that is considered as tipping below the half-point for the level of intellectual ability that I believe is necessary for a person to vote.
To be clear, I am not saying that intellectual people as a whole are "superior" to non-intellectual people, but that intellectual people in terms of complex ethical-political traits are typically superior in qualification than non-intellectual people. And since elections involve complex issues, I believe a high level of intellectual ability is needed.
There are areas where intellectual ability alone is unacceptable for qualifications in other fields. For instance, a person with immense intellectual ability but without technical skill ability cannot and should not be an automobile mechanic. Moreover engineers typically require not only a significant level of intellectual ability, but also technical ability. I believe that in the workplace, there should be economic democracy to be determined by people who have the technical know-how of what their work entails along with a significant intellectual ability.
For those who are concerned that such a system would oppress the intellectually-unable, I say that there should be voluntary representatives with high intellectual ability, similar to competent legal representatives, to represent their concerns and offer advice to as well as warn them about political consequences and important political issues during election time and other times. By this I do not mean elected political representatives, but counselors. The counselors will listen to the concerns of those people and vote for them in elections. If a counselor is deemed to have deliberately violated the concerns of a person he/she represents, that person could appeal to a court to review the counselor's actions for wrongdoing and convict the counselor if they did, and have another counselor do a "re-vote" on behalf of that person.
I am sure that there are many flaws with the proposal I have made here, I consider myself to be above-average in intellectual ability, but I am far below a genius. What do others think?
Top Opinion
-
No, I disagree with the idea the full-length of the idea that you have described
+5absolutely wrong thing to do. If they let someone vote for another person, that could be a terrible abuse. So one very powerful person votes for many? Who decides that person is more capable? Who decides what is the proper way to direct the country? I would do anything in my power to see that this does not occur.
And on a side note - how would YOU measure up, intellectually? Speculating about the intelligence or the intellectual capacity of others is no guarantor of one's own ability.
Andy
Secondly, I don't have any proof to back this up, but I am imagining that many of the lower IQ'd folks don't vote in the first place, they've got too much on their plate as it is and getting out to vote on a particular date for a particular party or candidate isn't in their educational process.
No, sorry, I sense a much bigger danger in substituting votes than in maintaining the status quo. I've got about five different scenarios running around in my head right this minute alone. There are just too many evil SOB's out there who could make this into a bonanza for their side I say stick to the present system and the electoral college.
Ruthannhausman, I think your comment is the best one here. You are correct, I have not laid out the details for what this would be, and yes there is the danger of it being exploited by manipulative politicians.
Furthermore I've changed my stance because, there can be ethical people who are not intelligent, and unethical people who could possibly be highly intelligent psychopaths who cheat the ethics test.
So I believe that sitting down, as we do, for example, here on SH, and talking things out with people and swapping ideas is far more effective than getting into violent protests or whatever. And you have just shown how reasonable people can, indeed, be reasonable. Thank you for your honesty.
But, more importantly, thank you for the insightful thoughts you had about a very important subject and for voicing your opinions. At least it brings all problems to the fore and allows us to discuss them. Hallelujah, civilization in action!
And I scrolled down to your next remarks and I will just comment that the phrase I always rely on for expressing my opinion, very simply, is, "Power corrupts." And that is what is happening today, for instance, in Washington, D.C. and our government. Too much power centralized for too long a period of time and the checks and balances, although provided for in legislation, are not exercised. So it is up to u...
So I believe that sitting down, as we do, for example, here on SH, and talking things out with people and swapping ideas is far more effective than getting into violent protests or whatever. And you have just shown how reasonable people can, indeed, be reasonable. Thank you for your honesty.
But, more importantly, thank you for the insightful thoughts you had about a very important subject and for voicing your opinions. At least it brings all problems to the fore and allows us to discuss them. Hallelujah, civilization in action!
And I scrolled down to your next remarks and I will just comment that the phrase I always rely on for expressing my opinion, very simply, is, "Power corrupts." And that is what is happening today, for instance, in Washington, D.C. and our government. Too much power centralized for too long a period of time and the checks and balances, although provided for in legislation, are not exercised. So it is up to us "common citizens" to monitor our elected officials and make sure they haven't been roosting too long in one spot.
Now this next comment is going to get me shot out of a cannon, I know, but I'll say it anyway. Although it is totally admirable and almost inspiring to read the history of, for instance, the Kennedy family (or "clan," if you will) and all of their political accomplishments. Well, they did a lot of good for Massachusetts interests, I'm sure, but I think to the detriment of the rest of the country in many cases. I consider this a perfect example of what prolonged governmental "service" can do. I'm not calling Kennedy any names or implying any criminal activity. I am saying that Ted Kennedy, for instance, having been in office for soooo many years, developed various little "growths" here and there that he had to nurture to keep his political pot boiling. And while adding so many new entities to his circle of friends and business associates, there were bound to spring forth some shady factions. Human nature.
So what's the solution? Term limits. Don't allow politicians to stay in office too long to where they develop multiple loyalties and incur multiple obligations to people other than the country. Two-term limit, then go home and live in the world like the rest of us.
That was fun. And thank you for your lovely comments. Have a great week.
Over time, since it sounded so nice and appealed to the ignorant masses, they watered it down so that everyone, including the profoundly retarded, could vote.
On the off chance that's not what you had in mind, I would respond: Who is going to decide who is "intellectually unable"? If they are unable who to decide to vote for, how can anyone else...
On the off chance that's not what you had in mind, I would respond: Who is going to decide who is "intellectually unable"? If they are unable who to decide to vote for, how can anyone else ("delegate") know how they would vote? Now that I think of it that's a reasonable comment for the first thing as well. Our founding fathers, as much as we revere them, tended to be intellectual snobs who thought we, the great unwashed, couldn't find our butts with both hands and a flashlight. (Not that they were all that well washed themselves.) Kevin Bleyer does an excellent job of illustrating this in his very funny book "We the People".
First of all I am NOT saying that only geniuses can vote, what I AM saying is that people who at least having average ethics, and a basic understanding of politics should vote. The test would require the person to be able to have basic ethical capacity and basic political knowledge. If a person can pass that test, they should be allowed to vote. People who would fail the test would include psychopaths, the ignorant, people do are severely mentally disabled, and the stupid. We already have delegation of rights of the severely mentally disabled to other people to act as their caretakers.
The test would be reviewed by legal experts (again its hypothetical and not from an existing court) They could inform the counselor what their preferences are.
Second of all I specifically said in my proposal that I am NOT arguing that intellectually able people are completely superior to intellectually able people. Nor is my idea uninvestigated, in fact emphasis on a politically-literate public was made by the Founding Fathers of your country, the United States. If the public is politically illiterate and incapable of clear rational thought, it can easil...
First of all I am NOT saying that only geniuses can vote, what I AM saying is that people who at least having average ethics, and a basic understanding of politics should vote. The test would require the person to be able to have basic ethical capacity and basic political knowledge. If a person can pass that test, they should be allowed to vote. People who would fail the test would include psychopaths, the ignorant, people do are severely mentally disabled, and the stupid. We already have delegation of rights of the severely mentally disabled to other people to act as their caretakers.
The test would be reviewed by legal experts (again its hypothetical and not from an existing court) They could inform the counselor what their preferences are.
Second of all I specifically said in my proposal that I am NOT arguing that intellectually able people are completely superior to intellectually able people. Nor is my idea uninvestigated, in fact emphasis on a politically-literate public was made by the Founding Fathers of your country, the United States. If the public is politically illiterate and incapable of clear rational thought, it can easily be turned into a tyranny, Alexis de Tocqueville talked about a "tyranny of the majority" - where an aggressive irrational majority especially in hard times can persecute a minority or minorities by virtue of its majority. There are some laws in various democracies to prevent that. There needs to be a rational, ethical, and politically literate voting base, and unfortunately that is not always the case - and tyrants have exploited ignorant or irrational people and risen to power and murdered millions of people.
Our government is destorying people's brains with aluminum phoshate fertilizer waste to prevent cavities and causes Alheimer's. Vaccines have mercury, aluminum, MSG and fermaldihide in them. They are creating generations who can't think or reason. Then to have someone represent some who can't think or take care of themselves, is a way to control votes. That's why no one should represent the person who can not vote by themselves.
My principle concern of why I propose this hypothetical proposal is the issue today of psychopaths voting and people who have anti-social personalities voting who could endanger other people. To a lesser extent I am concerned about people who are irrational who have been manipulated by demagogue politicians. The test would require that a person have basic ethical standards, basic rationality and basic political understanding.
Yes, that method has worked WONDERS for the US thus far; which may be why we have the most people in prison per capita, the most crime, the and why our children are unable compete on a global scale when it comes to education.
Because our political representatives truly have the well being of the citizens at heart, first and foremost.
As it stands, you're just misguided and probably somewhat elitist and egotistical in your belief that you genuinely know what's best for others.
That's how it always starts; with "good intentions."
In addition I am not "elitist" - I am meritocratic and I admit that I am nowhere near a genius, I just have modest critical thinking skills. I am STUPID when it comes to things like quantum physics or the qualities needed to be an engineer. I have known severely mentally disabled people, and I am no snob who looks down on them, in fact I am a supporter of greater rights for the disabled.
If you really investigate people's views, you will find that there are many people are dishonest when they say "oh I'm fine with everyone voting in democracy". And some of the comments here reveal that dishonesty - such as people saying that it would be "better off" if Democrats or Republicans didn't vote.
It's better to be honest with yourself and others, be openly critical, and ask a controv...
In addition I am not "elitist" - I am meritocratic and I admit that I am nowhere near a genius, I just have modest critical thinking skills. I am STUPID when it comes to things like quantum physics or the qualities needed to be an engineer. I have known severely mentally disabled people, and I am no snob who looks down on them, in fact I am a supporter of greater rights for the disabled.
If you really investigate people's views, you will find that there are many people are dishonest when they say "oh I'm fine with everyone voting in democracy". And some of the comments here reveal that dishonesty - such as people saying that it would be "better off" if Democrats or Republicans didn't vote.
It's better to be honest with yourself and others, be openly critical, and ask a controversial question and accept being proven wrong, as I agree with several posts that have criticized this. A major part of political correctness is people lying when they say that they have no problems with how liberal democracy (and I'm not referring to American liberal policy here) works.