Is vote weighting based on IQ a good thing?

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
IQ is meaningless. You can think faster, is all, not better. Some of the 'high IQ' types I've met have been the biggest fvcktards the world has ever seen, while some people I wouldn't have classified as 'high IQ' people (like my fellow employees, I'm working full time in a machine shop this summer) have a much greater grasp of things than anyone at my school (which is supposed to be the 'smart' kid school . . and it is, truthfully, but that doesn't mean the kids there aren't morons outside of books.)


Vote weighting is a bad move. I mean, sure, some really really dumb people might make bad desicions, but I bet the smart people make just as many.

The word you're looking for is irrelevant. IQ is not meaningless, it simply doesn't correlate directly to civic virtue or merit.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

anywho, this whole "issue" is a red herring.

the present political climate isn't a result of stupid voters, but rather the result of paternalistic good intentions gone awry. What we need isn't voter reform, it's system reform.

 

[Wallydraigle]

That's the worst idea I've ever heard. It would undermine the core doctrine of our government and the society that sprang from it. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". I guess everybody is equal, but if you're smarter than most you're just more equal? We might as well go back to the 3/5 laws and such if we even consider something like this. I thought we knew better by now.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Kyteland
I always likes R. Heinleins concept of voting in Starship Troopers. You had to earn your right to vote through civic duty in the military.

Ie, you aren't granted the right to vote by birth, you must earn it by proving that you are capable of handling the responsibility.

IQ is not a good indicator of how responsilbe of a person you are. I don't know if military service is either, but Heinleins fictional military is nothing like ours today, so...

i also like the concept that Heinlein introduces in Starship troopers, that by investing yourself you get a reward to participate in the government

it will never happen in the U.S. but i think it is a good idea

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
...result of paternalistic good intentions gone awry. What we need isn't voter reform, it's system reform.

our voting/political party system in the U.S. has effetively turned into the same "patronage" system that brought down the roman republic

at some point in our future, a cataclysmic event (natural disaster or WMD terrorism or something) will trigger the final move from a republic to a single ruler/police state/dictatorship


but then what do i know

 

[Dofuss3000]

I updated my first post with a % value for I.Q. 0-99

 

[ElFenix]

no, but i do think that some simple questions should be asked of all people who wish to vote.

 

[bradruth]

No, it's not a good idea. Unless a citizen has been convicted of a felony or has significant mental illness, they should be allowed to vote. Other than his voting scheme, he has a pretty solid theory for a society.

 

[tweakmm]

I guess that depends if you think having landslide liberal victories is a good thing.

 

[NogginBoink]

Yeah, that whole, "all men are created equal" thing was just a bunch of cr*p anyway.

 

[silent tone]

Originally posted by: lirion
That's the worst idea I've ever heard. It would undermine the core doctrine of our government and the society that sprang from it. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". I guess everybody is equal, but if you're smarter than most you're just more equal? We might as well go back to the 3/5 laws and such if we even consider something like this. I thought we knew better by now.

Well, intelligence has clear advantages. It's why we've built civilizations and don't still run around in the jungle, hunted by predators. Some people ARE more/less intelligent than others, so that must mean that we don't identify intelligence as a defining characteristic of man. I guess a man is defined by sentience, which is just a boolean value right?

 

[Soybomb]

Originally posted by: Kyteland
I always likes R. Heinleins concept of voting in Starship Troopers. You had to earn your right to vote through civic duty in the military.

Ie, you aren't granted the right to vote by birth, you must earn it by proving that you are capable of handling the responsibility.

IQ is not a good indicator of how responsilbe of a person you are. I don't know if military service is either, but Heinleins fictional military is nothing like ours today, so...

I wouldn't necessarily call military service proving you are "responsible" enough to vote. The two aren't really related even actually. Elitisim again really I guess.

Anyway no its a bad idea. First because there is no accurate way to measure it. Votes determine futures for everyone, therefor everyone should be equally represented.

 

[DrPizza]

Whether it's a good thing or not.... the weighting system doesn't seem to work too well for me.....
Plus, at a brief glance, I believe you made some errors (assuming a normal distribution of iq's)
Perhaps you could have someone in the next IQ bracket do some recalculating for you.

Your Formula:
Weight = 100/(100 - %ile) - 1

The smartest person (100th percentile) wouldn't have a weight; it would lead to a division by zero error. 100/(100-100)-1 = 100/0 - 1
(and, 100/0 does NOT equal infinity. But I know some of you were taught incorrectly and believe that it is. It isn't)

 

[Justin218]

No, this totally goes against equality.

 

[Bleep]

It is a great idea.
I also think that speed limits should relate to education. Dr. Degree=90MPH Masters=70 4 year=60 Associates =50 High school =40 dropouts =20

Bleep

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
Vote Weighting
Intelligence Party

100-110 is a range and includes everyone in that range

I.Q. / / / % of Total Vote Value
0-99 / / / 1.23%
100-110 / / / 2.26%
111-120 / / / 4.06%
121-130 / / / 5.69%
131-140 / / / 7.54%
141-150 / / / 9.80%
151-160 / / / 10.87%
161-170 / / / 12.16%
171-180 / / / 13.85%
181-190 / / / 14.82%
191-200 / / / 17.71%

NO

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: Soybomb

Originally posted by: Kyteland
I always likes R. Heinleins concept of voting in Starship Troopers. You had to earn your right to vote through civic duty in the military.

Ie, you aren't granted the right to vote by birth, you must earn it by proving that you are capable of handling the responsibility.

IQ is not a good indicator of how responsilbe of a person you are. I don't know if military service is either, but Heinleins fictional military is nothing like ours today, so...

I wouldn't necessarily call military service proving you are "responsible" enough to vote. The two aren't really related even actually. Elitisim again really I guess.

Anyway no its a bad idea. First because there is no accurate way to measure it. Votes determine futures for everyone, therefor everyone should be equally represented.

I take it you haven't read the book.

Heinlein just used a futuristic version of the military to make a point. His idea was that everyone isn't born equal and that certain people are better qualified to make decisions. In the world of his book everyone has the equal opportunity to gain certain rights, but they were not guaranteed. One of those was the rights of a citizen.

Everyone is born a non-citizen and although they have the same general rights as everyone else, they are not allowed to run for office and vote. Basically he used the milirary as his "test". If you made it through the process you earned the right of citizenship.

But really it had nothing to do with the military aspect. It was simply a system of weeding out the people unfit to have a hand in such matters as governing the populace. It wasn't perfect. Some poeple got through the system that shouldn't have and some people that should have never even tried. The point was that the system had a better success rate then letting every yahoo and his mother in to the system like we do now.

Go read the book. It is interesting and a very quick read.

 

[clamum]

Too bad something couldn't be instituted for voters to test their knowledge of the issues and candidates they're voting for.

To quote NOFX, "Political scientists get the same one vote as some Arkansas inbred."

 

[glugglug]

Among other issues I don't think you are taking into account that IQ is already a logarithmic scale.
A 191+ IQ is so rare, the one guy (if any) who has it will get 17.71% of the vote to himself.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

When they can quantify wisdom, then they can use that. IQ? Na.

 

[ebaycj]

what about idiot savants? they pull a 200 and get a huge %age of the vote.

ebaycj

 

[amcdonald]

I have a high IQ and I don't feel qualified to make more of a political impact than someone with a ~100 IQ. This intellectual republic, where you would have representation based on subjective terms, is illogical... something you'd see/read in a bad sci/fi plot.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

The reason why that doesn't work well, is because on many issues it's a question of "is it worth it to you?". I don't care if someone has an IQ of 280, they might not see a bond to improve roads statewide as worth it because they live in an area with good roads, while a truck driver or commuter with an average IQ would say "hell yeah it is!" since they drive on the roads.

 

[Ynog]

Is voting based on Race, Sex, or Religion a good idea?

Like everyone else has said, just because you are intelligent doesn't mean you are more qualified to make a decesion. You still have to
get off your ass to learn about what the facts are. You might be to understand them more quickly. But overall the dumb guy could spend
2 months learning everything the candidates stand for. And the guy that has 4 Phds, and works on highly classified technologies, who
doesn't care about the issues, but his job. He is probably not going to be educated on the politics. But his vote is going to count
more than the guy who spent the time to knows whats is going on.

One person = One Vote.

 

[jdogg]

Reading their policy on money:

Money is used for buying goods and labor, saving and as a unit for calculation. Interest, dividend, insurance and other ways of "making money with money" are abolished. Money itself cannot be a subject of trade. This means one cannot possess more money than one has earned or inherited during one's life. Inflation is zero. Each individual has a basic income throughout life, and by contributing to society one earns additional money.

Very interesting ... within a couple generations rich worthless bums would be eliminated ... of course they failed to take into account that this policy would lead to deflation ... silly people