Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Should people who aren't that bright be allowed to vote?

DJ Happy · 10-17-2004, 06:55 AM

I was having a conversation with a friend of mine the other day and he was arguing that voting need not necessarily be viewed as a right, but a privilege. If it were up to him, he'd only allow university graduates to be able to vote as they'd be the only people in the nation capable of making an informed judgement about what was best for the country.

I countered his argument by saying that his criteria would segregate voting in terms of financial ability rather than intelligence as there are plenty of bright, well-informed people who did not or were unable to attend university, and that many of degrees on offer do not require that much brain-power in order to pass (see: Golf Studies at Southampton University).

But it did get me thinking. After all, there are plenty of uninformed, "intellectually challenged" (how's that for a PC term?) people who hold my fate and the fate of my country in their hands. How do they know what's best for the country? Should tabloid readers who simply regurgitate the views of the nation's rags be allowed to vote? Or those who base their views on "documentaries" made by the likes of Michael Moore? Or those people who know nothing about anything but will vote for a particular candidate because of a long standing and unjustifed party affiliation? Or those who don't understand what a party actually stands for (for instance, parents of a friend of mine who want to vote Labour as they think they are against the notion of joining the Euro when in fact Labour's stance is the complete opposite)?

Should there be an intelligence and information criteria for voters to meet before they're allowed to vote?

10-17-2004, 06:55 AM	#1 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	Should people who aren't that bright be allowed to vote? I was having a conversation with a friend of mine the other day and he was arguing that voting need not necessarily be viewed as a right, but a privilege. If it were up to him, he'd only allow university graduates to be able to vote as they'd be the only people in the nation capable of making an informed judgement about what was best for the country. I countered his argument by saying that his criteria would segregate voting in terms of financial ability rather than intelligence as there are plenty of bright, well-informed people who did not or were unable to attend university, and that many of degrees on offer do not require that much brain-power in order to pass (see: Golf Studies at Southampton University). But it did get me thinking. After all, there are plenty of uninformed, "intellectually challenged" (how's that for a PC term?) people who hold my fate and the fate of my country in their hands. How do they know what's best for the country? Should tabloid readers who simply regurgitate the views of the nation's rags be allowed to vote? Or those who base their views on "documentaries" made by the likes of Michael Moore? Or those people who know nothing about anything but will vote for a particular candidate because of a long standing and unjustifed party affiliation? Or those who don't understand what a party actually stands for (for instance, parents of a friend of mine who want to vote Labour as they think they are against the notion of joining the Euro when in fact Labour's stance is the complete opposite)? Should there be an intelligence and information criteria for voters to meet before they're allowed to vote?