Everyone deserves to have their needs and desires represented, that is the true goal of democracy.

Doesn't sound like democracy to me. Try 'oligarchy'

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:It's not a bad idea, i just don't think it is fair. I would support looking into the idea of giving people a "licence to vote", just that IQ wouldn't be a part of the test. It would be purely based on an understanding of politics.

I don't think you need to understand politics, you need have an opinion on things that will affect you and hold some opinion on who you think will represent your wishes.

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.

It's a stupid idea. Why? Because sometimes the ones who can pass IQ tests are often completely useless when it comes to real life, common sense, and understanding other people.

jez9999 wrote:Why should every person have that right?

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?

jez9999 wrote:

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, in that situation you have 4/5 of the population who will effectively be told, this is what's happening, you have no say in the matter. Regardless of whether implemented policies are good or bad for them, and let's face it, humans in power have a long track record of looking out for themselves at the cost of others.

jez9999 wrote:bill: An oligarchy is defined as 'a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique'. I'd hardly call this a class or clique; it's still a large group of the population, determined purely on intelligence rating.

I'd absolutely call it a dominant class or clique. It is not 'The People', and is not democracy. Universal adult suffrage had to be fought for. Labour fought to undo the nonsense of graduates having extra votes for 'university MPs', and businessmen having extra votes based on business premises. We either decide that every citizen has equal worth & equal rights, or we are into oppressing a proportion of that citizenry. A dictatorship of an intelligentsia over the people is just as bad an idea as a dictatorship of the landed gentry.

I come from a working class background, but through hardwork have made the most of my intelligence (such as it is), overcome my dyslexia (well, accomodated & learned to manage it), managed to become an alumnus of five different universities (plus being so twice over from one of them), and am now well ensconced in the middle classes by dint of job. Under a previous system that rewarded university attendance (a mainly middle & upper-class trait), I would have had six votes to another's one. What you propose, with the top 20 percentile having the vote whilst others do not, would give me a 5:0 advantage, even worse than the gerrymandering of Tory & Liberal parties over electoral policy in the past. But the fact of my being middle class is the important bit here. Having raised myself from a being a lad from single-parent household on an estate, to home-owning middle class academic, I am now apart from the masses. I choose to vote not from pecuniary self-interest but from social conscience, but many do not. The middle classes are generally conservative if not Conservative, and will vote for self over others. Concern for the working class, a group typified by poor educational attainment, is minimal. To let the top 20% in IQ tests alone determine government, is to gerrymander the outcome so as to exclude much of the progressive left. When British government was decided by the middle & upper classes (through less than universal suffrage), government was for & by the middle & upper classes, and sod the working class. Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean enlightened social attitudes, nor concern for ones fellow citizens, and such a system would no doubt entrench privilege once again, just as we are on the road to overcoming it.

As far as bad ideas go, this one is pretty bad.

jez9999 wrote:bill: You're really saying the progressive left is generally to be found amongst the stupider part of the population? If anything, I'd say the opposite. How many progressive left-wingers read The Sun?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The key is in the 'top 20%' you talk about here. They don't read the Sun or the Mirror. That top 20% are mainly middle-class. The middle-class will have more Daily Mail readers than Guardian & Independent readers. The progressive left will no longer be in a position to have the support of the working class in parliament, but will be mostly out-voted by a self-interested majority from that limited sample of the citizenry that is your select few.

The point is, most people vote based on percieved self-interest. Most of the more intelligent will be in the middle class. Their self-interest will not necessarily be perceived to be to vote for the progressive left. As things stand currently, the progressive left in the UK is greater than the regressive right & regressive left. But that is in part because of where self-interest lies. Amongst those middle-class people, only a (significant) minority are likely to perceive a progressive left as being in their interests, or be prepared to put self-interest aside for a greater social good. Once you exclude 80% of the population, many of whose self-interest overlaps with that progressive left so giving it a majority, you are left with a 20% that when voting in terms mainly of self-interest, will not generally vote for parties of the left.