Posted: May 17, 2011 9:53 am
mattwilson wrote:As for whether or not it's a good thing that everyone can vote, If we do not give a large amount of people the right or ability to have themselves represented then we end up with a situation in which we say what we think is best for them. It's not such a big step from that kind of governence to totalitarianism.
The 'hardcoding' of the test into a constitution should prevent totalitarianism. Nobody could ever reduce the ruling class to a small elite; it must remain at something like 1/5 of the population.
It doesn't matter whether I could pass the test. If I couldn't I'd be happy to lose my vote, as long as the most intelligent 20% ran things. I'd have confidence in their ability.
Doubtdispelled wrote:Imagine how you would feel, Jez, if someone decided to take away your right to vote just because - for instance - you are a man. Would that seem fair to you?
I'm saying the traditional view of 'fairness' - everyone having an equal say - is seriously overrated. More important should be what makes for the best society - the maximum human happiness, the least chance of war, etc.
Determining who gets to vote based on gender is very unlikely to achieve that. Intelligence seems a good factor to me. It isn't perfect, but I think people who're more intelligent are more likely to take an active interest in current affairs, make objective decisions based on the evidence, and - importantly - NOT vote if they realize they don't have enough information to vote sensibly.