Should there be an IQ/General intelligence test people should be forced to take before being allowed to vote?

Question

U4ea0 · Accepted Answer

98% of voters shouldn't vote period.

No one in the Constitutional Convention was such a fool that he thought of letting an entire populace vote on matters of national interest, and all, I am sure, assumed that the limitation of the franchise to the owners of property was so obviously a part of political prudence that it would never be abandoned. The various states, however, differed in defining ‘property.’ Some limited the franchise to freeholders, but others required a certain amount of taxable property or even property of any kind. The mercantile and financial class, largely centered in New England, naturally insisted that money, in the bank was as good as, and no doubt much better than, real estate as a test of a man’s stake in the state. And it was commerce and speculation that put lots of money in the bank. But even they perceived the necessity of maintaining the limitations on the franchise.

Governor Morris (of Pennsylvania) proposed that the Constitution restrict the franchise to freeholders, that is to say, to persons who owned land as an estate in fee. He was most warmly supported by the Chairman, John Dickinson (of Delaware), who stated that he “considered them [freeholders] as the best guardians of liberty; and the restriction of the right [of franchise] to them as a necessary defense against the dangerous influence of those multitudes without property and without principle with which our Country, like all others, will in time abound.”

Here is what some of them thought...

It is likely that a majority of the Committee agreed with him ‘in principle.’ James Madison understood that the restriction of suffrage was fundamental, and that “the freeholders of the Country would be the safest depositories of Republican liberty. In future times a great majority of the people will not only be without landed, but any other sort of, property. These will either combine under the influence of their common situation; in which case, the rights of property and the public liberty will not be secure in their hands; or what is more probable, they will become the tools of opulence and ambition, in which case there will be equal danger on another side.”

John Mercer (of Maryland) saw the fatal defect of a large electorate: “The people cannot know and judge of the characters of Candidates. The worst possible choice will be made.” He even foresaw that there might arise “in the towns” such pernicious things as political parties that would choose a candidate in their own interest and procure his election by concocting propaganda to make him popular with the ignorant populace.

Democracy is not going to be around in 20 years.

RavVid · Accepted Answer

I like to think there is a great common sense to the voting public. At what IQ would you draw a line?

I usually say this about software 'It takes intelligence to be truly stupid' but I think it could be applied to people.

At what point was it ever a good idea to crowd the other 51 genders into the girls locker room?

No I will go with commonsense tests. Some suggested Q's for the test.

1. Is it a good idea to crowd the other 51 genders into the girls locker room?
2. Do you think the person you are thinking of voting for gives a rats for you or is s/he in it for the money?
3. Do you think there will be no unintended consequences of this new policy you are so excited about?
4. Has this politician really raised so much campaign money without pay back promises?

Please suggest others. We need to combine commonsense for the voter commonsense test..

BlueScorpio · Accepted Answer

What happens if you don't make the cut to vote? What are you going to do if they tell you you aren't worthy enough to fall in love or reproduce based off I. Q? What you going to do if they take your level of intelligence and base it off how you should live, where you work etc. People always come up with these ideas but forget to include themselves or families. What you think is a good idea can always back fire on you.

It's like those people who think there should be cut off or culling at a certain age to maintain resources. What you think is going to happen to you, your friends etc. Once they reach the cutt off? Lol

Dazed0N0Confused · Accepted Answer

Not to vote, but definitely to run for office.
What I think we should make mandatory to do before you can run:
1. Pass the citizenship test on the first try, regardless if you were born here or not.
2. Must be able to read at a high school level or greater.
3. Must have graduated from high school or gotten GED on the first try.

I also think everyone who is a citizen should be automatically registered to vote when they turn 18.

Lynx122 · Answer

Politics seems so screwed up I don't know what would help there's a good chance that whatever you try and do will backfire. I think everyone should personally try and realize when they're making decisions for emotional reasons and be able to step away from that and think things through again but it's never going to happen.

But smart people are just as susceptible to biases like this. I'm just glad that the political system in my country seems to work better than pretty much anywhere else, so I can just be grateful for it and not complain. But for bigger countries , there are steps that could be taken to make improvements but will it ever happen? It will take a long time, I'll probably be dead by the time their democracy improves.

Anonymous · Answer

noooope. all we need is proof of citizenship. Tired of being the only country in the world that lets people wander across the border and vote for laws and the leaders of our country.

But something like "intelligence", you have the Democraps literally saying for years that conservatives or people that voted for Trump are uneducated and shit. Clearly that can't be used as a deciding factor in deciding who is "book smart enough to vote". That goes against the founding ideas of this nation.

Twalli · Answer

If it's nationally certified and doesn't prevent a certain group of people from voting. I took one of the tests the south used to have for voting after the Civil War and failed it. So did most of my class, because the questions were ambiguous and open to interpretation allowing the reviewer to decide what they were looking for regardless of how the person answered.
I would prefer that everyone has to take a citizenship test to be allowed to vote. I did in 11th grade because it was required in my state.

uncleBobbyb77 · Answer

No, not an intelligence test however a general knowledge quiz covering whatever subjects are pertinent to the legislation being voted on or the qualifications and or history of the nominees running for office. Being well informed is a responsibility that should be taken serious by anyone foolish enough to believe under our current system the votes of the citizens matter and influence the final outcome in the least.

purplepoppy · Answer

Each side always thinks the other side is dumb but I agree with the premise of the question. For example here in the UK you vote by putting a X in a box next to your preferred candidate. But each year people put a tick there and a X by all other candidates thinking X means no.

normalice · Answer

No. Because then the problem becomes "who gets to write the test?" Republicans would try to control it to ensure anyone who votes Democrat would fail the test.

Also, the stupidity of the general public is entirely the fault of those who vote to defund public education. It is thus their just desserts to have to deal with an uptick in stupid people making policy decisions.

RolandCuthbert · Answer

Who gets to decide who votes?

That's why voting is a right given to every American citizen. We could say the barometer for voting is a college-degree. We can restrict it to citizens born on American soil.

Each one of these ideas violate the Constitution.

Ill_made_Knight · Answer

Now there's a can of worms I hope never to see opened. It would lead to accusations of tests being unfair based on cultural knowledge or any other sort of complaint you can come up with.
It also might actually be used that way to deny certain groups of people the right to vote.
No, absolutely not.

NamerOfStars · Answer

No. Who'd write it? Who'd administer it? What would keep THEM from pushing in requirements to weed out people who'd vote for things they don't like? Most importantly, why should being stupid keep you from having a voice in government? Remember, stupid people made the Hoover Dam; smart people made Chernobyl.

jcjj1991 · Answer

The dumb people would riot if this were the case.

Jokes aside, smart people make bad decisions. More specifically, they're very good at manipulating the public. They use their smarts for evil. Just remember, Hitler was a genius. Just a very evil one.

Democracy is more about human rights anyways. We vote for ideas rather than kill for them, even if they are horrible ideas

TDDMS · Answer

I'm perfectly fine with having an IQ test for voting. In fact it was quite the norm for most of US' history that required such. In fact I'm all in favor in limiting the vote for anyone working in government and/or receiving government benefits like welfare.

vald9inches · Answer

Wouldn't that just be a type of oppression against a minority or majority? I think if people or the government really care about the IQ of people and it's citizens they would make high quality education free but its pretty obvious they want to keep people dumb for the benefit of a few wealthy individuals

Apulu_Imback · Answer

Would be much better if IQ tests for candidates is done as voting is a basic human right. This would be discrimination as not all people can receive education.

Emiliamazing · Answer

Funny idea, but all that would lead to is more lawsuits and government headache. Perhaps we should all take it upon ourselves to remind each other of why we have such freedoms in many parts of the world and how to support and embrace them.

Faith18letsgo · Answer

There should definitely not be an IQ test. We know that standardized tests often end up having other biases. Also some people with disabilities have low IQs but still should have a say in who our government is.

Ghostluck · Answer

There should be an IQ test required before being allowed to live if you ask me. The world is not just being overrun by stupid people though, it is also being overran by people who aren't right in the head. Bad genetics have been populating like crazy and they have finally outnumbered the rest of the population.

NewsReader · Answer

It will never happen but would be a good idea. Would you rather have someone who has knowledge to decide what is best for the majority, or a mixed group where the uninformed or misinformed get to meddle in the election?

JamesDiaz11 · Answer

That and a general knowledge test on politics- even intelligent people may have no idea how government actually functions, and make stupid decisions based off that.

However, this would limit black voting to around 5%, which I'm all for.

Cuminginside · Answer

They tried that with poll taxes and qualifying restrictions, now we have fed law that controls voter rights act. If a person can read they qualify.

Levin · Answer

An IQ test so you can vote for Biden or Trump? The intelligence test is your willingness to vote in the first place. If you vote, you're not that intelligent.

Ames2007 · Answer

"Forced." No. That contradicts both what so-called liberals and conservative Americans say they stand for. Freedom. Claiming a person is "stupid" because they don't resort to ways you think they should agree on and follow is arrogant.

Anonymous · Answer

How would republicans ever get a vote?

CarolineW · Answer

Vote? I think people should have an intelligence test before they use a knife and fork. So many total airheads in the world today

Light909090 · Answer

Everyone should be Mandated to go back to elementary then middle then high school if they don’t have a B+ or higher on every test every piece of homework throughput there years then they should not be allowed to Vote.

Chazmatazz269 · Answer

Absolutely, and it should not be the only test. There should be a comprehensive test over the nation’s history as well as government types past and present.

FunkyMonkee · Answer

It might help us to weed out the stupid democrat voters but, seeing as the bulk of the country is already republican, I don't think that many stupid voters is gonna change the outcome. Joe knew that. That''s why he had to cheat so badly!

exitseven · Answer

It sounds good but according to the Constitution everyone gets a vote. Besides , who gets to make the test? Who decides what the passing score is?

duttyjamagyal · Answer

No cause intelligence doesn't account for human biases. Someone could said 1 1 equals two and someone would still disagree not because they don't understand that question but because 1 1=2 doesn't benefit them as much as 1 1=4 does, you feel me?

cth96190 · Answer

I would do it differently. As in the film Starship Troopers, franchise would come after military service. I would add a requirement for ownership of a qualifying amount of property.

WhiteSteve · Answer

Vote counts for the entire nation would be like 12,634 - 11,796, and that’s only that high because I’m feeling generous tonight lmfao🤦‍♂️😂

ODC2112 · Answer

The current democracy as it is understood today is an ognagocracy or the government of donkeys, so no. In an epistocratic system, that is a form of government in which the right to vote is subordinated to knowledge of the topics, yes.

dustybiker · Answer

IQ tests are no longer held as reliable or accurate.

WilliamPamer446 · Answer

No because then mentally challenged people coulnd't vote. there should instead be an "eligibility" test.

BeMuse · Answer

Nope. The 19th amendment to the Constitution gave women the right to vote.

Avicenna · Answer

That would be unconstitutional- literacy tests were once used to illegally restrict the right to vote.

Cubus · Answer

One politician in my country says that "it can't look like this, that 2 bums drinking beer have more votes than an academic professor".

TallAnon · Answer

No, mainly because that skews the laws in favour of the smart and democracy requires equality in this sense. If we deny the rights of the stupid, they start doing stupid things. The illusion of freedom is important.

Silver158 · Answer

there should be one before they're allowed to work. far too many people working these days amaze me for the simple fact they haven't accidentally killed themselves trying to make toast in the bath.

Guy13 · Answer

You would Fail my Standard Number: 🙃 be careful what you wish for 🚫

Subarugirl · Answer

No... that sounds a lot like segregation... kind of like how they justified not letting people of color or women to vote...

RiseofArtemis · Answer

Yes and then most extreme liberals leftists will lose their voting rights.

andreasderjuengere · Answer

Wouldn't it be better to IQ-test a candidate before running for President?

llorando · Answer

Nope, that's undemocratic plus there would be too many voters on both sides that wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Anonymous · Answer

That's not really fair, there would never be a republican president again if that was enforced :/

ElementoP · Answer

Hell no. A lot of dumb people voted for Trump and that was clearly the right choice

Anonymous · Answer

Of course not, that whole line of thinking incorrectly presupposes that intelligence is a guard against manipulation.

Kasabiian · Answer

would be a bit awkward tho... if they passed that would make them smarter than the people they're voting for

Vegasrunner · Answer

No but there should be one b4 people are allowed to buy guns.

OddBeMe · Answer

Toughy. But no. It should be widely and more available. Voting day should be a holiday. Not a fcking Tuesday.

Joker_ · Answer

so like, you get a C on your high school maths test and you're allowed to vote? that would be great

ManHater · Answer

laugh. most americans are dumb as fuck. look at their educational system its all 2+2=? Let alone they all use common core like wtf is that shit?

Anonymous · Answer

honestly they need to go back to only people who are legal citizens and legit land or business owners can vote in elections.

LeftHappy · Answer

Schools are part of the divide n conquer racket meant to create Democrats, just like the media so do the 'right' thing when voting if you want a good paying job someday!

zagor · Answer

And who is going to write the qualifying test?

Nadim171 · Answer

No, they should pass a basic history test. There are people who don't know shit about politics or history and still vote.

Anonymous · Answer

No. Just be voting age, have a license, and be a legal citizen living in that state for at least 6 months.

maximumpower · Answer

Should be there for a LOT of things. Parenthood should be big #1.

hostboy__fastestlaps · Answer

Yes, but most importantly BEFORE HAVING CHILDREN!

TitsMcGee16 · Answer

Yes and if you are mentally ill (aka all of the demonrat voters) then you should not be allowed to vote.

Jesterteddy66 · Answer

That is like forcing people to take a test for being a parent or taking a test to do basic things and most people don’t go by the book.

Should there be an IQ/General intelligence test people should be forced to take before being allowed to vote?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should there be an IQ/General intelligence test people should be forced to take before being allowed to vote?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.