jfuh

I think I say both irregardless and I could care less oops

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

Cataclysmic 7.9 earthquake in China, how to donate to the relief fund.

Korimyr the Rat

Disqualifying any adult citizen from voting contradicts the notion of democracy. I'm not advocating this policy, even though I am not particularly attached to democracy; I'm only answering where I would draw the line, if I were required to.

That's a larger percentage of citizens allowed to vote than when this country was founded.

Certainly a fair point. Frankly, I'd rather draw the line according to the percentage of political questions the prospective voter agrees with me on-- unfortunately, I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to allow me to design the tests.

What scares me is that some people apparently are foolish enough to allow the Devil they don't know to do so.

__________________

Lachean

YOU LIED TO ME!

__________________
"Truth, in the matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived." - Oscar Wilde

Psychoclown

First, to deal with the general question. Korimry answered it rather eloquently in his first reply. It may sound like an attractive idea at first (if you don't subscribe to ideals like universal rights and such), but elections are what is supposed to hold the government accountable. Now you can argue that elections don't do a great job, but they do the job better than almost anything else humans have tried outside of armed rebellion.

Now if you let the government decide who can and can't vote i.e. who will be allowed to keep them accountable, well you can see the enormous potential for the government to act in its own interests and not the interests of the general public.

The history major in me can't ignore this part.

Germany was one of the leading industrial powers in the world since it became a nation. Hitler had nothing to do with it. The Soviet Union was a rather unique case in that it was already a Great Power, had access to massive amounts of untapped manpower and resources and had access to fairly modern industrial technology and methods. That rather unique situation allowed them to industrialize rapidly, but it certainly was not due to the form of government they had. The Soviet Union or Russia if the revolution had not occurred would've almost certainly industrialized itself rapidly in the 20's and 30's no matter who was in charge.

As to using IQ tests, that is a horrible idea even if I did support this type of thinking. IQ tests have been proven to be culturally biased and only measure certain types of intelligence. And this points to another problem with the OP's entire premise. Even if you support the idea, how do find a fair, non-partisan method to determine who is "worthy" to vote?

__________________
Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

Lightdemon

Of course, I know that's not your position. It's just for the sake of argument.
We can probably go further and say that Democracy assumes that everyone has equal status/value when it comes to voting. So anything that differentiates the standing of any voter contraticts the notion of Democracy.

My beef was with the 1 standard deviation thing.

That's not really saying much since only white men with land could vote. Doesn't really fit into today's context.

__________________

jfuh

Don't cry you won't see it in the future.

CaptainCourtesy

Irregardless if the most bad-*** word there is. Here's the proof;
Off topic: In defense of 'irregardless' | Crave : The gadget blog

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

independent_thinker2002

So DP doesn't lose half of it's members!

__________________
==]:{o

Lightdemon

lol

So that DP's basement can still function at maximum capacity?

independent_thinker2002

Most definitely!