Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

rJD · **#81** by **rJD** » May 24, 2011 9:34 am

jez9999 wrote:
rJD wrote:
By the way, I don't want to see any more whinging on this forum about idiotic politicians elected by idiotic voters.

Tough. Some people (like us) can agree with the process but be disappointed with particular governments or policies enacted;

You're dumb to agree with the process. It's so good at electing terrible government you're asking for constant disappointment.

Nice ad hom - you might want to revisit the rules before posting any more in this vein.

Individual governments always disappoint in some areas but there are also advances, even in generally dreadful administrations, and any really crappy decisions tend to be reversed pretty quickly. Your dismissal of "terrible government" doesn't mean that your proposed amendment would be any better, and you've been given numerous reasons by numerous posters why it wouldn't work and why the current systems, flawed as they are, are better. But you choose to stick by your idea even though you no longer have any rational cause to do so; it's pretty telling that all you have left, now that your arguments have been shot down, is insult.

jez9999 · **#82** by **jez9999** » May 24, 2011 9:38 am

It's quite tempting to resort to insult when people like you, instead of bothering with any kind of polite criticism, contribute things like,

batshit crazy ideas have met with deserved derision

Sorry, but that irritates me. Don't do it and I won't insult you.

rJD · **#83** by **rJD** » May 24, 2011 9:46 am

jez9999 wrote:It's quite tempting to resort to insult when people like you, instead of bothering with any kind of polite criticism, contribute things like,

batshit crazy ideas have met with deserved derision

Sorry, but that irritates me. Don't do it and I won't insult you.

Ideas (including batshit-crazy ones) are fair game. Attacking the person is not. You have failed to engage with any of the polite criticism, so I see no reason to treat your ideas with more politeness. Nonetheless, I have not personally attacked you. It's pretty easy to stay within the rules, if you want to.

jez9999 · **#84** by **jez9999** » May 24, 2011 9:49 am

Anyone who's ever argued for any kind of significant societal reform has had their ideas called batshit crazy, or words to that effect, I'm sure. Doesn't make your criticism any more profound, as you seem to believe it is.

As for not having engaged with any polite criticism; evidence please?

rJD · **#85** by **rJD** » May 24, 2011 10:09 am

jez9999 wrote:Anyone who's ever argued for any kind of significant societal reform has had their ideas called batshit crazy, or words to that effect, I'm sure. Doesn't make your criticism any more profound, as you seem to believe it is.

As for not having engaged with any polite criticism; evidence please?

IQ tests aren't at all objective - you continue to post as if they are.

IQ tests don't have any relevence to interests in justice or empathy, and you've been given the example of psychopathy, but you haven't addressed this at all.

Selection of a limited electorate would tend towards a self-perpetuating oligarchy; you've not addressed how to protect against this.

Under your oligarchy, people categorised as "dumb" would have no representation and no stake in government. It has been pointed out that this is not only unfair and leading to discrimination, but could have implications for social cohesion. Where have you addressed this?

All these problems have been brushed aside with a blithe assurance that smart people will make good government.

jez9999 · **#86** by **jez9999** » May 24, 2011 10:22 am

I can only assume you haven't read the whole thread.

rJD wrote:
jez9999 wrote:Anyone who's ever argued for any kind of significant societal reform has had their ideas called batshit crazy, or words to that effect, I'm sure. Doesn't make your criticism any more profound, as you seem to believe it is.

As for not having engaged with any polite criticism; evidence please?

IQ tests aren't at all objective - you continue to post as if they are.

I addressed that. I think one can come up with a reasonably objective non-verbal IQ test. If you look up criticism of IQ tests, you'll see that the oft-cited cultural bias of IQ tests is seriously disputed. It's by no means certainly true.

IQ tests don't have any relevence to interests in justice or empathy, and you've been given the example of psychopathy, but you haven't addressed this at all.

Psychopathy? I took that as a joke. Psychopaths make up a tiny percentage of the population and their vote would barely make an impact on the overall outcome.

Selection of a limited electorate would tend towards a self-perpetuating oligarchy; you've not addressed how to protect against this.

I addressed that, many times. I think an objective IQ test would prevent this. You can't just buy intelligence like you can buy influence in a true oligarchy (or, indeed, a US-style democracy where bribery is outright legal).

Under your oligarchy, people categorised as "dumb" would have no representation and no stake in government. It has been pointed out that this is not only unfair and leading to discrimination, but could have implications for social cohesion. Where have you addressed this?

Unfair by your arbitrary standard of fairness that everyone's voice, no matter how uninformed, should carry equal weight. Try challenging that inbuilt assumption. It doesn't make sense to me. And I hold myself to that standard. I don't expect to have much influence in astronomy, because I don't know much about astronomy. Why should everyone's opinion be equal when it comes to electing a government?

Social cohesion? Even you used the word, 'could'. I see the current democratic system in many countries (without PR) as even less 'fair' than the system I'm proposing, even by your definition of fairness. In the UK, 70% of people's votes are thrown away. Yet, we do have a reasonable level of social cohesion. If we're going to throw away 70% of votes, maybe it would be better to throw away a different 70%.

NineOneFour · **#87** by **NineOneFour** » May 24, 2011 10:24 am

jez9999 wrote:Meh. You're just spouting the received wisdom. You have as much evidence for your support for universal suffrage's superiority as a Muslim does for the Quran's superiority. A gut feeling, instilled by society.

By the way, I don't want to see any more whinging on this forum about idiotic politicians elected by idiotic voters. When someone actually suggests an idea for eliminating the problem, you shoot it down. Do you just enjoy whinging?

Your idea sucks.

The Soviet Union decided that everyone who was intelligent (i.e. Communist) would join the party and only party members would run for office.

That worked astoundingly well. And by "well", I mean "badly".

jez9999 · **#88** by **jez9999** » May 24, 2011 10:26 am

Did the Soviet Union attempt to systematically test the intelligence of their people in any kind of objective way?

NineOneFour · **#89** by **NineOneFour** » May 24, 2011 10:30 am

jez9999 wrote:Did the Soviet Union attempt to systematically test the intelligence of their people in any kind of objective way?

Ah, the repetition of a fallacy in the hopes that eventually someone will be foolish enough to not see it as a fallacy.

MacIver · **#90** by **MacIver** » May 24, 2011 11:24 am

jamest wrote:
MacIver wrote:But to put it simply I believe everyone is principally equal, and thus everyone deserves the right to vote.

If everyone is equal, then no doubt you wouldn't mind if parliament was elected by lottery? I don't see how you could object to that, given your 'principles'. The problem with that, obviously, is that most people lack sufficient intelligence/knowledge/skills to be able to govern the country, so that if we acknowledge your principles and allow anyone to govern, then the country would soon be in freefall. This is just basic common sense - people who manage [in whatever capacity] need sufficient and necessary intelligence/knowledge/skills. In other words, people aren't 'equal', since it is evidently clear that some have the capacity to manage/govern and some don't.

Now, this reasoning can then be extended to the electorate: it is obvious that there is a diversity of capabilities amongst them, regarding intelligence and knowledge of politics. This is just a fact of life. There's no point in pretending that it aint so, Joe. However, this creates a problem, for if the majority of the electorate lack political savvy, then what happens is that the outcome of an election is fucked. It's akin to asking the kind of person who watches the X Factor and idolises Justin Bieber to vote for the best Classical composer. You'll get an uninformed result. You'll get a result that favours looks and personality, for instance - since the voters [generally] know very-little about that which they are supposed to be voting about.

This is a serious problem, because when it comes to electing people with the best intelligence/knowledge/skills to govern the country, the 'uninformed effect' will often thwart us. Indeed, if we consider the recent AV referendum in the UK, what happened was that the electorate - in general not having sufficient in-depth knowledge to participate - voted anyway. But much of their vote was not about the issue-at-hand, but about their fear-of-change and their desire to kick the liberals up the arse. It was a fucking joke of a referendum, considering the seriousness of the issue in a longevity context.

So, there is some mileage in the OP, and anyone who spouts assertions like "We're all equal" is clearly talking through a brownish hole, garnished with a golden glitter. Universal suffrage does come at a cost for quality politics. This is not to say that all poor and working-class people should be excluded from voting. But I am of the opinion that politics should be taught at school and that nobody should be allowed to vote unless they pass some kind of exam which will prove that these people have a decent grasp of what politics is about at a broad level.

The most important people in the lives of any individual are the executive of its State. Politics and policies are the biggest influence on anyone's life. Our physical and societal environment has been constructed by politics. Politics has created the stage upon which everyone of us plays-out our lives. So don't tell me that 'principles of equality' - which are an utter fiction - should be the guiding-light by which we should elect our policymakers. Fuck that, I'd rather have a system which will provide me with expert policymakers, as opposed to popular ones.

Equality simply does not exist. There are more intelligent/knowledgeable/skillful/capable people than others. It's a fact that even Rawls understood when formulating his 'difference principle' and A Theory of Justice.

Your problem is that you are conflating equality of rights with equality of capability, which is wrong. However, it is not wrong (imo) that you should want the best possible outcome for those of us who lack these capabilites. Rawls himself said that we should allow those best-able to enrich the economy, to do so, then provide for those who are unable to participate in that endeavour through taxation and such. In other words, equality and rights are not synonymous with one another.

If Rawls had extended his argument to suffrage, he would have had no choice other than to say "Let those best-able to elect our governers do so, that we might all reap the good fruit of their minds". Rawls cannot advocate that we all go out and vote and individually suffer the effects thereof, any more than he can advocate that we should all be individually responsible for our economic circumstances. That we all have a right to share in what is best, does not necessarily mean that we all should be active in producing what is best.

Your problem is that you are conflating equality of rights with equality of capability, which is wrong.

No, you're problem is you're thinking I'm confusing equality of rights with equality of capability. I'm talking about rights. The rights of everyone to vote.

You've wasted your time with that whole spiel.

edit: That was a bit brash of me. I'm sorry. You didn't waste your time because it was actually an interesting read. 8-)

serenity · **#91** by **serenity** » May 24, 2011 11:46 am

Well, I've had a go at trying to shake the OP from his view.

Perhaps I ought to post the reasons why Universal Suffrage is better than partial suffrage - under whatever criteria that selection is made - and try to persuade him of the rightness of "our" position.

Might I suggest you, OP, read at least the first three chapters of Representative Government by John Stuart Mill. It will tell you what good government is, and why disenfranchisement will always fail to achieve the aims you require from your "reform".

Government that is not despotic relies on the consent of the governed. Without representation that consent will not - cannot - be given.

As I posted earlier, partial suffrage is a return to slavery - and J S Mill makes the point far more eloquently than I.

MacIver · **#92** by **MacIver** » May 24, 2011 12:00 pm

jez9999,

I’ve quickly skimmed through the last couple of pages so my apologies if you’ve have, but from what I can tell you’ve still to address these points I made in my post on page 2;

You've failed to address the issue of the fact that the voting patterns of the top 1/5th would likely be similar to the voting patterns of everyone.

Your entire argument is based on your supposition that the ‘top 1/5th’ will vote more appropriately (whatever the fuck that is). Yet from what I can see you’ve utterly failed to provide the smallest shred of evidence for this claim. Except for the assertion that “smart people will vote better”. Which is a huge assumption. A lot of smart people voted against AV, a lot of smart people believe in drug prohibition.

You've failed to address the issue on taxing everyone yet only 1/5th of people having a say on what this cash is spent on.

You’ve also completely ignored or brushed aside my point that the implementation of such a system would lead to revolt. It was the simple practice of taxation without representation that led to the American War of Independence, and for the most part the colonists were a lot less educated, literate and intelligent that your average Joe on the street is today.

You have, once again, provided zero proof of why just because someone watches X Factor and reads the Sun they would either be unwilling or unable to rise against such an injustice.

And of course, if they are all just a bunch of idiotic, foolish sheep as you claim, then it would only take one slightly more intelligent person who believes in true democracy to lead them to revolution.

You sidestepped the issue on how such a disgusting system would be implemented. How would the Northern African become Select Suffrage states? Would the universal suffrage nations of NATO force it one them?

The reality is, such a system could realistically only come about through a (most likely violent) coup. I cannot envision how it could be any other way. And political systems that are born in violence often end in it.

You've even failed to tell us why the 1/5th population should be voting? Why not a quarter? or 124/678s?

As someone else said, it is most likely that you chose 20% because you believe you would fit into it.

When we strip away everything else, this proposal is just your ego and self importance coming to the fore in my opinion. :nono:

my_wan · **#93** by **my_wan** » May 24, 2011 1:07 pm

jamest wrote:If everyone is equal, then no doubt you wouldn't mind if parliament was elected by lottery?

That is like asking if I would mind voting rights to be issued by lottery. In fact everybody has the right to run for office just as everybody has the right to vote. The lottery is a non-sequitur as equality != random.

rJD · **#94** by **rJD** » May 24, 2011 2:12 pm

jez9999 wrote:I can only assume you haven't read the whole thread.

Oh dear, more lazy assumptions!

jez9999 wrote:
rJD wrote:
jez9999 wrote:Anyone who's ever argued for any kind of significant societal reform has had their ideas called batshit crazy, or words to that effect, I'm sure. Doesn't make your criticism any more profound, as you seem to believe it is.

As for not having engaged with any polite criticism; evidence please?

IQ tests aren't at all objective - you continue to post as if they are.

I addressed that. I think one can come up with a reasonably objective non-verbal IQ test. If you look up criticism of IQ tests, you'll see that the oft-cited cultural bias of IQ tests is seriously disputed. It's by no means certainly true.

It is certainly the case that your claim to have access to an "objective" test of intelligence is hugely controversial, if not certainly demonstrably wrong.

IQ tests don't have any relevence to interests in justice or empathy, and you've been given the example of psychopathy, but you haven't addressed this at all.

Psychopathy? I took that as a joke. Psychopaths make up a tiny percentage of the population and their vote would barely make an impact on the overall outcome.

Would it help your reading comprehension if I put the example of psychopathy in bracketed parenthesis instead of commas? Psychopathy was indeed humerous (at least I read it as such) but it was also a demonstration, the extreme example of why intelligence cannot be equated with empathy.

Selection of a limited electorate would tend towards a self-perpetuating oligarchy; you've not addressed how to protect against this.

I addressed that, many times. I think an objective IQ test would prevent this. You can't just buy intelligence like you can buy influence in a true oligarchy (or, indeed, a US-style democracy where bribery is outright legal).

You can buy education, and you can rig the game spectacularly in your favour if you directly "own" government. No matter how well intentioned oligarchies start, they will always tend to concentrating power to themselves, regardless of the overall effect on society.

Under your oligarchy, people categorised as "dumb" would have no representation and no stake in government. It has been pointed out that this is not only unfair and leading to discrimination, but could have implications for social cohesion. Where have you addressed this?

Unfair by your arbitrary standard of fairness that everyone's voice, no matter how uninformed, should carry equal weight. Try challenging that inbuilt assumption. It doesn't make sense to me. And I hold myself to that standard. I don't expect to have much influence in astronomy, because I don't know much about astronomy. Why should everyone's opinion be equal when it comes to electing a government?

Because everyone is governed. This really shouldn't be difficult to understand.

Social cohesion? Even you used the word, 'could'. I see the current democratic system in many countries (without PR) as even less 'fair' than the system I'm proposing, even by your definition of fairness. In the UK, 70% of people's votes are thrown away. Yet, we do have a reasonable level of social cohesion. If we're going to throw away 70% of votes, maybe it would be better to throw away a different 70%.

What you've written here is an argument for better democracy, not an argument to disenfranchise people of whom you disapprove. Even in the situation where governments are elected on a minority, they have to be careful not to piss off the majority so much that they unite to kick them out - where is that check on your preferred oligarchy, short of violent overthrow of the government?

chairman bill · **#95** by **chairman bill** » May 24, 2011 2:29 pm

Maybe we should make moves to bring about a more informed & enlightened electorate, rather than reducing the pool of electors. A good start might be classes in school on citizenship & politics, and making them part of a core curriculum. Now there's a thought

Beatsong · **#96** by **Beatsong** » May 24, 2011 7:13 pm

jez9999 wrote:I addressed that. I think one can come up with a reasonably objective non-verbal IQ test.

You mean "non verbal" like spotting the difference between patterns, which one matches which other one and so on?

To be fair I think it is indeed true that this area of testing is the least amenable to practice and learning techniques. Having just gotten my son through the 11+ exam for grammar school it was the one that he (fortunately) just "got", and didn't particularly improve at over time as he did with the other tests. I can still see two problems though -

1. Peoples' performance in these tests is still going to be influenced by factors like concentration span, which are highly affected by the environment they are brought up in (we for example have no TV and my son has always been encouraged to read extensively, think and debate since he was little) and would result in a self-perpetuating division of those "born to vote" and those not.

2. Even if, for the sake of argument, one could make such a test completely objective, one has to wonder what they wisdom is in having the country run by a little bunch of maths geek misfits and autistic savants who are good at spotting that the left triangle contains two shaded rectangles and one large circle, whereas the right triangle contains one shaded rectangle and two small circles. Not sure I can see how this would be the ideal qualification for choosing who should make the most important decisions in the country about international relations or welfare reform.

I agree that it would be good to only have "intelligent" people making those decisions, but the kind of intelligence required is the kind that is inextricable from insight into human psychology, emotional wisdom etc - ie the kind that is impossible to divorce from learning and background.

If you look up criticism of IQ tests, you'll see that the oft-cited cultural bias of IQ tests is seriously disputed. It's by no means certainly true.

Not sure about that. What I think IS universally agreed now is that there is no one, single, meaningful definition of intelligence. Unless you mean the completely circular one that "intelligence is that which is measured by IQ tests".

There are many different kinds of intelligence, appropriate and useful for different taks and circumstances. You are talking about an embrassingly blunt and unsubtle simplification of the concept. Even if such a simplification were able to be codified and measured reliably, I see no reason to believe it would give us the best decisions about who to have running the country.

my_wan · **#97** by **my_wan** » May 24, 2011 9:39 pm

jez9999 wrote:I addressed that, many times. I think an objective IQ test would prevent this. You can't just buy intelligence like you can buy influence in a true oligarchy (or, indeed, a US-style democracy where bribery is outright legal).

IQ is plural, not singular. Trying to say there is an objective measure of IQ is like an objective measure of athletic ability. Then how would you compare the athletic ability of a runner with a swimmer?

Also, I call BS on the claims about "US-style democracy". In what possible way is bribery outright legal?

Mr.Samsa · **#98** by **Mr.Samsa** » May 25, 2011 3:02 am

Beatsong wrote:
If you look up criticism of IQ tests, you'll see that the oft-cited cultural bias of IQ tests is seriously disputed. It's by no means certainly true.

Not sure about that. What I think IS universally agreed now is that there is no one, single, meaningful definition of intelligence. Unless you mean the completely circular one that "intelligence is that which is measured by IQ tests".

There are many different kinds of intelligence, appropriate and useful for different taks and circumstances. You are talking about an embrassingly blunt and unsubtle simplification of the concept. Even if such a simplification were able to be codified and measured reliably, I see no reason to believe it would give us the best decisions about who to have running the country.

Jez is kind of right, in that for standard IQ tests (the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) the cultural biases that used to exist in older versions are no longer as problematic as they used to be, and arguably have been mostly eliminated. But more importantly for Jez's point, although I don't think this is what he meant, there are IQ tests that are completely culture-independent, like the Raven's Progressive Matrices test.

But with that said, you are right in that there are multiple measures and definitions of intelligence, so I'm not sure I'd be using IQ tests just yet to determine who can vote (assuming that we could agree that using intelligence was a valid filter for who we should allow to vote which, as you point out, is not necessarily a valid position to hold).

my_wan wrote:
jez9999 wrote:I addressed that, many times. I think an objective IQ test would prevent this. You can't just buy intelligence like you can buy influence in a true oligarchy (or, indeed, a US-style democracy where bribery is outright legal).

IQ is plural, not singular. Trying to say there is an objective measure of IQ is like an objective measure of athletic ability. Then how would you compare the athletic ability of a runner with a swimmer?

Interestingly, this is essentially how IQ tests work - they take completely different areas which are generally considered to be "intelligent", like logical reasoning or mathematical ability (in the same ways running and swimming are "athletic"), and then they searched for an underlying variable which accurately predicted success in all of these areas, and this was Spearman's "g factor" or "intelligence" as we understand it. That is, if we gathered up all athletes and measured a number of traits they had, like (just guessing) muscle mass, lung capacity, hormonal levels, etc, we could theoretically find some underlying variable which predicts success in all of these areas, and we could call it the "A factor" which indicates the underlying 'athleticness' of people. The point is that scientists argue that the evidence currently suggests that there is this kind of general intelligence which everyone has to varying degrees, and the higher our general intelligence is, then the better we perform in the problems posed by IQ tests. This, in turn, goes on to be hugely accurate predictors of our success at school, our success in whatever job we end up in, and I think even other things like relationship status, and so on.

What you seem to be suggesting with your athletics comparison is something like Gardner's multiple intelligences, who argued that there are different kinds of "intelligence", rather than just this single g factor which accounts for all the activities that we generally consider 'intelligent'. In a nut shell, Gardner was looking at the problem backwards, and many of the kinds of "intelligences" that he suggested were accounted for by the g factor, so it's really a fringe theory in science these days.

my_wan · **#99** by **my_wan** » May 25, 2011 7:49 am

Why would you think it is that Raven's Progressive Matrices test is biased toward Asperger's? For an intellectual skill set needed a high probability of success in life that is a bit counterintuitive regardless of technical skills. Certain intuitive skills that allows some people to process algorithm visually while others take a linear stepwise approach cannot be distinguished in many of those test. I actually had some trouble with Raven's Progressive Matrices style test while excelling in verbal and sucking in perceptual speed until I looked through the answers on Raven's Progressive Matrices and got familiar with the kind of skills the designers were expecting me demonstrate. From my perspective they were merely looking for the patterns of least complexity (in most cases) rather than the pattern. The exceptions could generally be judged on the relative complexity of others near it.

Mr.Samsa · **#100** by **Mr.Samsa** » May 26, 2011 4:44 am

my_wan wrote:Why would you think it is that Raven's Progressive Matrices test is biased toward Asperger's?

I'm not too sure to be honest. I can't find any information on the average IQ of people with Asperger's, but I was under the impression that they are generally considered to be pretty intelligent. If so, then their success might simply be a product of their intelligence. If not, then it might be explained by one of their various stereotypies, like their stacking or organising behavior. In other words, they have a lifetime of practising and perfecting the skills needed for the Raven's test.

my_wan wrote:For an intellectual skill set needed a high probability of success in life that is a bit counterintuitive regardless of technical skills. Certain intuitive skills that allows some people to process algorithm visually while others take a linear stepwise approach cannot be distinguished in many of those test. I actually had some trouble with Raven's Progressive Matrices style test while excelling in verbal and sucking in perceptual speed until I looked through the answers on Raven's Progressive Matrices and got familiar with the kind of skills the designers were expecting me demonstrate. From my perspective they were merely looking for the patterns of least complexity (in most cases) rather than the pattern. The exceptions could generally be judged on the relative complexity of others near it.

Yeah I've never actually taken a Raven's test myself, but I know one of my problems that I have with IQ tests is a general fear of being assessed, and also I'm terrible at figuring out exactly what questions are trying to ask me. Instead of just assuming that they are asking whatever interpretation seems the most obvious, my mind tends to investigate all possibilities and ambiguities, and I have no idea which question I'm supposed to be answering.

Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Re: Selective suffrage - has this been tried before?

Who is online