Only college educated people should get to vote

a reply to: JAGStorm

Every time I've visited a University or viewed the background of our politicians, senior Civil Servants, Clergy, Judiciary etc here in the UK the more convinced I am that if anything a university education should preclude someone from voting and taking political or public office.

a reply to: JAGStorm

A show of skin in the game might be more appropriate. Perhaps only property owners, military service, and a basic aptitude test. Overall, if a basic test of civics and IQ could be had then that would go a long way.

I have an MBA from a top school. And I attended college back when maintaining an “A” average actually meant something. Having said that, some of the most ignorant and arrogant (the deadly duo) people I have ever met are college educated. And some of the most wise and thoughtful people are not. For the most part, today’s educational system is nothing more than leftist, big government, secular indoctrination centers.

Only those that pay a NET federal income tax or property taxes should be allowed to vote. Or implement a flat tax with no deductions. Regardless, Government employees should NOT be allowed to vote.

originally posted by: drz400
A true democracy, "of the people, by the people, for the people. There is no need for voting for a leader. No need for one. Only online voted in workers who carry out the work of the votes. Everything could be voted for in real time online. No lobbyists, no ads, only true facts given before a vote takes place.

Well, true facts are really only campaign promises, so voters will still be left in the dark.

a reply to: VVV88

Only those that pay a NET federal income tax or property taxes should be allowed to vote.

So would that mean that people on benefits would not be allowed to vote?

What about people who rent homes and don't pay property tax?

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: VVV88

Only those that pay a NET federal income tax or property taxes should be allowed to vote.

So would that mean that people on benefits would not be allowed to vote?

What about people who rent homes and don't pay property tax?

Just sale square inch parcels of land, and charge a ten dollar property tax. I am sure that is how the Democrats would solve the problem.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: VVV88

Only those that pay a NET federal income tax or property taxes should be allowed to vote.

So would that mean that people on benefits would not be allowed to vote?

What about people who rent homes and don't pay property tax?

You got it.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
Simmer down, simmer down.

I don't really think that is a good thing. I do think it would be interesting to make citizens pass
a basic US government test before voting.

How many uneducated voters are there? Do you think literacy would change the outcome of elections?
I've know so many people on both sides of the voting fence just go in and vote straight Republican or Democrat without
even know who they are voting for. I see this on a local level where I live. This isn't just about poor young people, a lot of this
can be said for elderly too.
Can we really trust uneducated people with such a responsibility?

Some of these same questions come up regarding felons and their voting rights, or lack thereof.
Why? They don't make good decisions, have low morals, are uneducated etc...

I go back and forth on ideas like this. Basically, you have one of two possible viewpoints, and try as I might (since I think moderation is the solution to all) I can't find any middle ground between the two philosophies:

1. Those who are informed on a subject, should be the only ones who get a vote on that subject. The average level of intelligence in any given field is extremely low, as only few possess an in depth knowledge. Even Bachelors degrees in a field, which usually consist of nothing more than a survey of a survey of topics in a field, are above average yet to those who research something... that is still only at best a beginners level understanding of the topic.

As such, the only reasonable conclusion is that most people are not informed enough on a field to make an informed decision on any sort of proposed plan, even when they do try and inform themselves on the issue. This means that if we do not want the uninformed to vote, then the vast majority of people (well over 99.99% on any given topic) simply should not get a vote.

2. Information is not necessary to cast a vote. What matters in voting is that people can express their opinion, and voice their concerns in wanting or not wanting a solution through generic decision making processes like the presentation of a cost/benefit analysis. This relegates voting not to what should be done, but if something should be done. And then those who are elected to do something, can speak directly with experts and form a plan.

-----------

I go back and forth between these two ideas on a near daily basis. The spirit of our country was founded on #1, but the idea of democracy only works in #2.
.
As for the idea of a college degree... I've met a lot of stupid people with degrees. They're less stupid than those without as a general rule, but they're still quite stupid. Even civics classes don't really tell you anything, because civics at best merely inform you how things work. It does not equip you to question why things work they do, or better yet... how to improve on the existing system. And as such, it doesn't give you the necessary information to redesign our government for the better, as we are supposed to do with every election cycle. It only tells you the process

originally posted by: MyToxicTash
I couldn't afford college but I'm no idiot in fact some of the dumbest people I meet are University kids.
So no.

All kids are dumb, university or not. You're presenting an argument that 18 year olds, who are barely sentient in the first place are not mature enough to vote. Not an argument on education.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: JAGStorm

I never finished my degree.

And whether or not anyone here agrees with my world view, I'd venture to gues many would agree I know more than most people who vote or don't vote.

I'm not saying I'm right, just saying most here stay current.

That said I don't think people should be blocked from voting, dumb ass or not.

If you pay taxes (most people do) , you should be able to vote.

Do you?

Write me a paper on the history of the evolution of cultural views of Iran from 1950 through present day. Cross reference this with global trends, and projected global trends. Now use this to extrapolate how cultural and governmental views will evolve in Iran through the next 50 years.

If you cannot do this, you clearly do not know enough on Iran to cast a vote on any policy relating to them.

I cannot do this (without a lot of studying). You most likely cannot do this. So why should either of us be able to vote for a leader based on their proposed Iran policy? Now do this for every single country in the world and factor in how we can then manipulate the evolution of foreign viewpoints, through our actions.

That's the very, very beginning to casting a vote based on foreign policy.

originally posted by: MyToxicTash
I'm in the UK but is it in the constitution that everyone can vote? If you are a citizen of the USA and the right age?.

Actually, believe it or not, the answer to your question is a no.

Although it is generally assumed (including by the courts), no where in the US constitution, or in any other laws is the right to vote actually enumerated. There is no law in the Constitution that confirms a right to vote, there are only laws that state reasons as to why a person may not be prevented from voting. Furthermore, national elections are actually state elections and each state runs their own. Each of those states, can set any laws on voting that they want, provided they don't go against the laws at a federal level which state why a person may not be prevented from voting.

originally posted by: Lumenari
Property.

If you are the type of person who cannot achieve that (which isn't exactly a hard goal) then why should you take part in electing lawmakers?

Owning property isn't a hard goal? Most people cannot safely afford the homes they've already bought. A house should cost no more than 90% of one years income at the time of purchase. How many people actually do that? Each and every person who paid more than that, has bought more home than any sane financial planner will suggest you should be paying.

The average individual income in the US is about 30k, that means a home should cost no more than 27k, which is well... impossible.

All this does is either further drive up the cost of housing, as everyone wants to buy a house in order to be able to vote (which will likely then be leveraged as a weapon by property owners, against non property owners), or lead to massive financial ruin as people are now encouraged even more by the government to make purchases they cannot afford.

That would be very, very bad. And of course, that's already making a gigantic leap of logic in saying that purchasing a home makes you the owner of that home, when the reality is that the holder of the loan to purchase the home is the owner, until it is paid off.

originally posted by: Lysergic
120+ iq to vote.

# college.

So the entire internet gets to vote then?

Have you read what most people write on the internet? It's not exactly a stellar endorsement of letting only the smart people vote.

a reply to: VVV88

Why not go the whole hog, send kids up chimneys and down mines, bring back the workhouse?

Universal suffrage may not be perfect but the alternatives were and are a damned sight worse.

a reply to: Lumenari


I'm all for it so long as we define landowners and male only. The last thing we need is uppity women getting to vote simply because the responsible man has died.

It's full of hate....

sorry you have so much of that in your life and are blind.

a reply to: SeenItBelieveIt

a reply to: Aazadan

Now that is BS I know many 18-21 year olds who are not dumb many are way more clued up than my generation was at their age.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
Simmer down, simmer down.

I don't really think that is a good thing. I do think it would be interesting to make citizens pass
a basic US government test before voting.

How many uneducated voters are there? Do you think literacy would change the outcome of elections?
I've know so many people on both sides of the voting fence just go in and vote straight Republican or Democrat without
even know who they are voting for. I see this on a local level where I live. This isn't just about poor young people, a lot of this
can be said for elderly too.
Can we really trust uneducated people with such a responsibility?

Some of these same questions come up regarding felons and their voting rights, or lack thereof.
Why? They don't make good decisions, have low morals, are uneducated etc...

Even uneducated people are US citizens and have the right to vote.

a reply to: JAGStorm

what would you do about those adults who have voted for 'x' party all their life and absent a dramatic shock in their lives, will continue to automatically do so until they die.

should they have the right to vote?

what about making a rule that no one with a net worth of less than $10 million should not be allowed to vote? ''

If you aren't allowed a vote, or if your vote is discounted as not being the right one, what moral authority does the state have to expect you to obey it's laws?

Seriously, if you are an adult and excluded from the legislative process, then any law imposed upon you must bear some shade of tyranny.

Shouldn't we all oppose tyranny?