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

DJ Happy · 10-18-2004, 12:32 AM

Interesting discussion.

I hear a lot of talk about the fact that all "sound-minded" adults should be allowed to vote, and it got me thinking of the definition of being of sound mind.

In my opinion it extends further than those who are diagnosed with a mental illness. [Edit: A man can be] brainwashed by baseless propoganda and he could well use that as the basis of his voting decision. He is not using his mind in a responsible manner, as the instrument of critical and inquisitive thought - he is just doing what he has been told. But then the question arises of, "Who decides what is propoganda and what isn't." Truth is a relative concept after all.

But I still feel that knowledge of basic issues should form some part of the basic requirement. In my first post I mentioned the case of the parents of a friend of mine who want to vote Labour because of a supposed policy of theirs which in fact is not a policy of theirs at all. Refusing these people the right to vote would not only save the electorate from being subjected to policies that the voters never intended to be put into practice in the first place but would spare his parents the embarrassment of playing a part in their own downfall. The problem is that we have people voting who don't know what they're actually voting for, in which case how is the vote representative of the will of the people?

How to implement these measures would be the problem, and I like Opie's suggestions, although I think that the tests should be more black and white ("Who is the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer?") to limit the ambiguity of some knowledge and opinions.

10-18-2004, 12:32 AM	#63 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	Interesting discussion. I hear a lot of talk about the fact that all "sound-minded" adults should be allowed to vote, and it got me thinking of the definition of being of sound mind. In my opinion it extends further than those who are diagnosed with a mental illness. [Edit: A man can be] brainwashed by baseless propoganda and he could well use that as the basis of his voting decision. He is not using his mind in a responsible manner, as the instrument of critical and inquisitive thought - he is just doing what he has been told. But then the question arises of, "Who decides what is propoganda and what isn't." Truth is a relative concept after all. But I still feel that knowledge of basic issues should form some part of the basic requirement. In my first post I mentioned the case of the parents of a friend of mine who want to vote Labour because of a supposed policy of theirs which in fact is not a policy of theirs at all. Refusing these people the right to vote would not only save the electorate from being subjected to policies that the voters never intended to be put into practice in the first place but would spare his parents the embarrassment of playing a part in their own downfall. The problem is that we have people voting who don't know what they're actually voting for, in which case how is the vote representative of the will of the people? How to implement these measures would be the problem, and I like Opie's suggestions, although I think that the tests should be more black and white ("Who is the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer?") to limit the ambiguity of some knowledge and opinions. Last edited by SecretMethod70; 10-18-2004 at 12:52 PM..