Ban stupid people from voting?

Published on April 30, 2006 By Sally jacobs In Politics

I have my faults. There is no doubt about that at all. I have opinions, and things that I believe in that other people would have a problem with. I am always willing to listen though. If people have a decent argument to put forward I will take it on board. I guess that's what this blog is about. I haven't fully made my mind up about the topic of this blog. So I am looking for other points of view. I don't have alot of patience. I have less patience for really stupid people. I know that sounds harsh, and believe me I am not the most intelligent of people. However, really stupid people infuriate me. I think it's because I think to myself people really can't be that ignorant and stupid, it's impossible. Even if you try and explain things to them, it's like you're talking to a brick wall. I would say it goes in one ear and out of the other. That's to kind. I doubt it even goes in. *sigh*. That's harsh. I just get frustrated. Everyone is different, and has different experiences and different levels of education. This article isn't about how smart you are though. It's about how stupid you are, and how people don't seem to care.

So what inspired this blog? Well I was reading a great article by the wonderful Dynamaso (look at link), which got me started on a long waffle, and made me think of this. When the British Election was taking place. I was chatting to a girl who was similar age to me, and I asked her who she was going to vote for. She responded by saying that she probably wouldn't vote, but if she did she would vote for the BNP. For those of you who don't know the BNP is the British National Party, a party who's mainly known for the fact they want to abolish multiculturalism and preserve our own identity. Grrr.....I'll try and stay nice. Though I think it's complete crap. Anyway, I didn't attack this girl, I simply asked why she had chosen to support such a party. Now I have come across many people who have said the very same thing to me, and I ask them all the same questions. I ask them about their manifesto, where they stand on education, and health, and crime. For the most part they all look at me blankly, and have no idea what I am talking about. This girl took it one step further. She said to me, well I hear that ethnics come over here, and get free driving lesson, and I just think that's completely unfair(she was learning to drive at the time). So the BNP will get rid of them. Now not only is this completely untrue, but can you really place a country in the hands of people for such a reason? Knowing nothing else about them? I'm sorry I just don't get it.

I used to think that everyone should vote. That it was their country and everyone had a right to their say. I'm not so sure anymore. Take all the people that choose not to vote. I used to think what a waste. But if they have no idea about the different parties, and they don't really care, then maybe they shouldn't. Maybe we are better off leaving it to those that do care, and do have an opinion. It really scares me to think that the vote is in the hands of people who think like that girl did though. That they have nothing else to base their opinions on than things like that. I believe in freedom of speech, but am I like everyone else, and I only like it until people stop saying what I agree with? I don't want to be like that. I want to listen to people, and take on their views. How can I possibley take people like that seriously? Maybe an IQ test before you vote is in order, or a test of your knowledge of what the parties stand for. Or even basic education in schools to give people some knowledge on politics, and how they really do effect the world we live in. Our world can't be left in the hands of stupid people. I won't have it. I did a search on google before I wrote this article, and I found this comment left somewhere;

Re: should stupid people be allowed to vote
If stupid people can run for office (and win), stupid people should be able to vote.

They may have a point

Comments (Page 1)

dandrayan

on Apr 30, 2006

If it were up to me, lots of things would require a competency test.

Idiots should not be allowed to:
* vote -- they just vote fellow idiots into office
* drive -- they're the insensitive and selfish asses on the road that cause accidents for us responsible drivers
* own a car alarm -- someone in my apartment complex finds it fascinating to make his alarm chirp catcalls at women all day... 'nuff said
* bear offspring -- do we really need the idiots breeding more of their kind?
* own a cell phone -- this is why it's now socially acceptable to talk about your father's colon cancer in a loud voice on the phone at a restaurant, and part of the reason they drive so recklessly
* purchase music -- they only make mindless pop drivel more popular and force the rest of us with good musical taste to listen to their rap music at ear-bleeding decibel levels as they slowly drive by in the streets
* walk alone in public -- I can't count how many times I've been frustrated by mindless idiots at the store that stop for no reason in the middle of the aisle right in front of me

Okay, so maybe that's a bit too harsh or ridiculous, but hopefully you get the basic idea.

Caracarn1

on May 01, 2006

Who judges who is "stupid" and who isn't? You? Me?

For all we know, she thinks you are the stupid one for not voting in her direction and what she believes to be right (not saying that it is).....so....can she make it so you get deemed as "stupid" and say that you can't vote either?

Dr Guy

on May 01, 2006

Who judges who is "stupid" and who isn't? You? Me?

Some people dont need to be judged. IN the words of the philosopher "Stupid is as stupid does".

Tova7

on May 01, 2006

Well I can say I certainly have my moments.

Two words.

Ross Peroe.

Sally jacobs

on May 01, 2006

Dan I do like your way of thinking! I agree with most of your thoughts, though I doubt that I would pass the test for walking alone in public, I am somewhat dizzy, which can lead to havoc!

Who judges who is "stupid" and who isn't? You? Me?

Well I can only speak for myself, and what I consider to be stupid

For all we know, she thinks you are the stupid one for not voting in her direction and what she believes to be right (not saying that it is).....so....can she make it so you get deemed as "stupid" and say that you can't vote either?

I couldn't agree with you more. It's only my personal opinion that she is stupid for her point of view. She could think exactly the same about me and I have no doubt that many people would consider some of my opinions stupid. It's all down to personal opinion, and that's what makes the world so wonderful that people do see things in different ways. I'm not saying I am right in this blog, I'm just putting an idea out there. If there was say a test to be done before people voted, then it wouldn't be up to her or I who voted.

Some people dont need to be judged. IN the words of the philosopher "Stupid is as stupid does".

I'm with Tova, I also have my moments. No ones perfect huh.

Thanks for all the comments x

Caracarn1

on May 01, 2006

Not saying I don't agree with you. Because I do, I am just thinking of the logistics of it all.

Like a carnival sign "You must be at least this smart to vote" or something?

bakerstreet

on May 01, 2006

Stroll down to the religion section and you'll find a blog pointing out studies that state that people who hold spiritual beliefs are supposedly less intelligent than people who reject them. The two sides of the political coin in the US think the other side is less intelligent. I've been told to my face right here at JU that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats.

So, I guess you have to decide how you are judging intelligence. If "scientists" can do sociological studies and actually believe that they've proven that people of faith are less intelligent, then it seems obvious to me that the intelligence of "scientists" is suspect. People say what they think makes them appear smart, not what they really believe anyway.

So, if you start providing freedom only to people who are smart, and make those perceived as "stupid" live under their thumb, I wonder how it will effect what we state openly about ourselves? I wonder how easy it would be crush political or spiritual beliefs, even racial characteristics, by labelling them "stupid".

Adventure-Dude

on May 01, 2006

Baker would this create anarchy? Since there is no way to measure and based upon one's perception of others I would safely say that would eliminate everyone from voting?

bakerstreet

on May 01, 2006

No, just the opposite, in my opinion. It would create a fascist state where whoever decided who was intelligent held absolute power. I have taken standardized tests, and I don't think I like the idea, not for a moment, that the idiots who design them could end up being the ones who pull the strings.

Of course they wouldn't. They'd just have their strings pulled by the people who wanted to steer the voting demographics in their direction. Stupid people have the right to represent themselves just like anyone else. If people have a problem with that, they could devote their blogging time to educating them on the issues, maybe.

Sally jacobs

on May 01, 2006

Not saying I don't agree with you. Because I do, I am just thinking of the logistics of it all. Like a carnival sign "You must be at least this smart to vote" or something?

....I'm not sure about that. Maybe. Maybe 'smart' is the wrong word.

Stupid people have the right to represent themselves just like anyone else. If people have a problem with that, they could devote their blogging time to educating them on the issues, maybe.

Hmmm.....does it not depend on what areas people are tested? What if they weren't test. What if we just made sure people were educated about politics, and were given something to think about, and something real to base their ideas on. Here in England I feel it is different to America. Young people here don't seem to care as much in general. They ignore politics. They fail to see how it has a direct effect on their life. That's because they know NOTHING about politics. So in that area yes they do need educating. Is it bad to want that? Is it bad to want to inform people on things, and then allow them to make their own decisions? The girl I spoke about in this blog didn't have the correct information, and she had nothing to compare her ideas too. So in the area of voting she was stupid, because she had never learnt anything. Maybe I am wrong, I don't know.

Thanks for the comments, it gave me something to think about x

Adventure-Dude

on May 01, 2006

Yes you are right but I was refering to that there is someone who will think that someone is stupid. By that table alone there would be no one to vote. I agree with you that in reality oppression will ripen quickly.

Sally,

I think ignorance would be more appropriate. There are simply too many people who vote out of ignorance. They ignore the fact that they as a responsible citizen should understand the person's stance on key issues not just party association. But I guess that's why we have the electoral college to hopefully reduce ignorance?

Dr Guy

on May 01, 2006

I've been told to my face right here at JU that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats.

Check out what Frank Herbert said 25 years ago. Very appropriate to this discussion and you comment I think.

bakerstreet

on May 01, 2006

I think one thing you are overlooking is that most of the people you are talking about don't vote at all. If you worry about people walking in and just voting because of the party beside the name, well, most people do that regardless of education.

Look at JU, for instance. We used to talk about Iraq before the war and the big villain then was sanctions. People posted insane numbers of deaths due to them, just as they post insane numbers of civilian casualties now. When you point out that the population of Iraq simply didn't support that, they claimed we simply were brainwashed by the media.

Then you have supporters of the Iraq war claiming that people who oppose it are brainwashed by the negative coverage constantly aired by the mainstream media. Then you have educators who are giving kids extra credit for protesting, or who spend their time in class promoting their political stance, as we've seen here lately.

In light of that, it would have to be a really, really objective standard. I don't even think some people's "issues" are issues at all, frankly, so if someone asked me intricate questions about them I wouldn't be interested enough to give the names and dates.

Placing barriers to voting is always a bad thing. A small amount is necessary to make sure that the election is clean, that people only vote once, etc., but anything more always seems to focus on particular groups. Just look at what a problem drawing the lines of the voting districts is.

Consider the people who have the least time to educate themselves. You work two jobs, you take care of your family, but you really don't have time to watch a lot of news. Then you have someone who is at leisure and has the time to do a lot of reading and watch TV. Their interests, and quite possibly political beliefs, would be comepletely different, but one would be more apt to be allowed to vote.

bakerstreet

on May 01, 2006

"Do you know the candidate's names?

To what degree? Like, you can only vote on the elections wherein you can name the candidates? And you don't want to make it about the signs in people's yards?

You'd have a huge turnout for Presidential elections and the lower you go the less votes. You'd probably have some local elections that only the campaigns themselves were allowed to vote.

What party they belong to?

Not sure that really matters. If someone wants to vote for someone and then changes their mind when they find out that they are a Republican... well, that doesn't sound like any more of an informed choice. After all, the party is pretty obvious in the whole voting thing.

Where the party stands on the issues of the day?
Where each candidate stands on the issues being presented?

Tell that to the log cabin Republicans and pro-life Democrats. I know there are a lot of pro-life people who just vote Democrat because of Roosevelt era Demcrat mystique, but I don't know any of them that aren't aware that the Democratic party isn't pro-life.

Anyhoo, you'd have to have parties that actually TAKE stands on the issues. Go back and read about Kerry in terms of gay marriage, war, abortion, etc. I read a lot about the man, and I can't say for sure where he really stood on any of it.

And not all candidates follow their party platform. As McCain or Zell Miller where they fall on the issues in terms of the party platform. I think the whole party platform thing would just tend to pull the wool over people's eyes instead of informing them. In reality, the platform is just windowdressing anyway.

Sally jacobs

on May 01, 2006

There are simply too many people who vote out of ignorance. They ignore the fact that they as a responsible citizen should understand the person's stance on key issues not just party association

Yes I think you're right, I couldn't agree more!

I don't think intelligence tests for voters are the answer, but a basic civics exam based on the particular election in question wouldn't hurt.

Hey LW! It's nice to see you back, and thanks for the comment. I do agree that people need a basic idea of who they are voting for. Even if they just know the key issues each party stands for, so they can see where they sit. I suppose it's the same with everything, people stick with what they are most familiar with, and what they've heard most from. Amazing how easy it is to manipulate people really! Thanks for the comments x

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!