Should the Right to vote be limited?

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
I believe that ideally only those who are of good will which in this case means that they put the interests of the common good before their own narrow personal ones when making political decisions and those of at least a basic degree of rationality (Im not talking about IQ- there are very many people with high IQs who are deeply irrational) should have any Politcial Rights. Do people here think it would be possible to create tests that could show whether people or not possessed these virtues even if they choose to lie on them? Scientology is evil but they are all sorts of ingenius tests that show up people's psychological and emotional weakenesses even if they are trying to hide them.

I think if such tests could be created and passing them made a necesscity if you were to get the right to vote even under current circumstances it would greatly improve the quality of our politics given how so much of it has now been reduced to people seeking to serve their pretty greeds and allowing the puppet masters of the media and capitalist entertainment industry to play their emotions like a violin (and what a hordid sound they produce off them most of the time).
 


Notachipanoaktree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
8,137
The Real Wisdom of the Crowds
POSTED THU, 01/31/2013
In 1907, Sir Francis Galton asked 787 villagers to guess the weight of an ox. None of them got the right answer, but when Galton averaged their guesses, he arrived at a near perfect estimate. This is a classic demonstration of the “wisdom of the crowds”, where groups of people pool their abilities to show collective intelligence. Galton’s story has been told and re-told, with endless variations on the theme. If you don’t have an ox handy, you can try it yourself with beans in a jar.

To Iain Couzin from Princeton University, these stories are a little boring. Everyone is trying to solve a problem, and they do it more accurately together than alone. Whoop-de-doo. By contrast, Couzin has found an example of a more exciting type of collective intelligence—where a group solves a problem that none of its members are even aware of. Simply by moving together, the group gains new abilities that its members lack as individuals.

Couzin–one of National Geographic’s Emerging Explorers–has spent his whole career studying animals that move in shoals, flocks and swarms. His early work involved ants and locusts but when he started his own lab at Princeton, he thought he’d upgrade to a smarter group-living species. Unfortunately, he ended up with the golden shiner—a small, bland, minnow-like fish that’s dumb beyond the telling of it.

Consider this: shiners have a natural preference for darkness. Plop a shoal of them into a pool of water, and they’ll head for the shadiest bits. This is something that animals do all the time: They track gradients in their environment. A migrating robin might follow the Earth’s magnetic field, a moth might follow the scent of a flower, or an ant might track the pheromones laid by its nest-mates. But single shiners are laughably bad at this.

Andrew Berdahl and Colin Torney from Couzin’s team discovered their ineptitude by projecting shifting patterns of light over a shallow pool and adding the shiners in increasing numbers. Overhead cameras tracked their movements, and the team calculated how good they were at chasing the shadows.

The solo fish did so badly that they were almost swimming randomly. Only larger shoals were good at avoiding the shifting light. Even then, Berdahl and Torney found that the shiners’ movements were far more influenced by what their neighbours were doing, than by how bright the environment was.

That’s the key. The individual fish aren’t tracking anything. That would involve realising, for example, that it’s getting darker over there compared to over here, and swimming over there. Instead, they obey one very simple rule—swim slower when it’s dark. Each fish just reacts to how bright it is in its current position. How bright or dark is it right here? That’s a scalar measurement. It’s the shoal that converts these local readings into a vector.

To understand how this works, imagine that a shoal of swimming shiners grazes a patch of shadow. The fish that first enter the shade slow down. But the rest of the shoal doesn’t shoot off into the distance. Shiners have a strong instinct to stick within a certain distance of their neighbours. They almost behave like a rigid block, so if one end slows down, the rest of them swivel… right into the shade.

Once inside, they all slow down. They start bunching up together like cars in a traffic jam. And if the shadows move, so they find themselves in light, they start swimming faster again and leave.

Berdahl and Torney’s discovery flies against the “many wrongs” principle, which biologists have invoked to explain the migrations of natural groups since 1964. The idea is that groups can track gradients in their environment because each individual makes an imperfect decision about where to go. When the crowd pools their estimates, they cancel out each other’s errors, and mutually arrive at the best possible vector. It’s just Galton’s ox again, but applied to migrations.

But the shiners are patently not pooling estimates—the individuals are so bad at tracking gradients of light that it’s hard to believe that they’re making estimates at all. But by adhering to the simple instinct that keep them together as a shoal, the shiners can transform acts of individual detection into an act of group navigation.

That’s collective intelligence! The shiners’ ability to stay in shade emerges from neighbourly interactions of dumb units. The fish aren’t pooling decisions that each individual makes on its own—they’re collectively processing information. By moving as one, they can compute as one.

Couzin suspects that this phenomenon is goes well beyond shiners, and might apply across a variety of migrating animals. After all, the rules that shiners obey are so simple that they should be a doddle for natural selection to produce. You don’t even need a brain to pull off the same trick—just the ability to respond to the environment, and to stay as a group. Cells can do that. All sorts of animals can do that.

This may be important for conservation. Couzin’s team showed that the shiners’ ability to follow the light suddenly collapsed when they shoals fell below a certain size. And we have repeatedly slashed the group sizes of many animals by hunting them or destroying their habitats. If those groups become sufficiently fractured, and their numbers fall below a certain threshold, they may lose abilities that they only have en masse.

Reference: Berdahl, Torney, Ioannou, Faria & Couzin. 2013. Emergent Sensing of Complex Environments by Mobile Animal Groups. Science Emergent Sensing of Complex Environments by Mobile Animal Groups | Science




So! NO.
 

between the bridges

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
44,938
Yes, one each...
 

raspberry tea

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2015
Messages
1,670
Two for me,bring back gerrymandering!!!!On a serious note, I think our votes don't matter as there are lobbyists that really are the movers and shakers in politics....
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Yes, one each...
It has been suggested to me by two (actually possibly three) people that only those with a degree of fluency in Irish should be allowed to vote in the Republic of Ireland; I think instead what should be done is to give such people two or maybe three extra votes instead. I also think that people who have children should get one vote more than those who have not done their duty to the gene pool (unless of course they are Priests or Religious) because they have much more of a stake in the future.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,069
Its hard enough to get good people to vote without asking them to pass a test first.
Do you think those deemed too stupid to vote would take this peacefully?
 

Erudite Caveman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
7,329
IQ should have nothing to do with it. Any one who wants to vote needs to be tested for competence, just like we do before letting people drive. Not letting people drive isn't seen as a restriction on a citizens right to move freely around the country, even though there are many places that are effectively inaccessible without a car.

There could be a series of tiered qualifications - pass a test on local government for local elections, the EU for European elections etc... The bar doesn't need to be set very high - basically any adult that can be bothered their hole learning how things actually work. Couple that with a basic civic test, and then people get their licence to vote in whatever election they are qualified for.

And abolish the need for the vast number of referendums we hold.
 

Lúidín

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
7,253
I have prepared a committee of noble citizens, chaired by myself, to oversee that only the right people can avail of the voting concession. The others should be grateful that they are allowed breathe, eat and sleep.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
You should talk to some virtuous people and ask their rationale for voting for a specific candidate or party.

You might reframe your question as "Should only people with commonsense be allowed to vote?"
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,900
[video=youtube;f-pT-w7qFl4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-pT-w7qFl4[/video]
 

Rightist

Active member
Joined
Sep 9, 2015
Messages
142
Right to vote in the past was always limited.
This is one of the reasons, why you have Electoral College in USA. In USA on the top of the thing you should pay money ( I think 2 dollars, which was a lot ) to have a right to vote.
Now, I think in Belgium, if you don't vote you pay a fee - which is opposite to the Right to vote.
Many people are not interesting in politics at all, so maybe this is good idea.
 

Jim Car

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
2,695
So from reading the opening post. If you agree with me and believe in the same things as i don in general then you can vote if not then no. As much as I may disagree with peoples opinions I would never allow them to be denied the right to express them at the ballot box.
 

Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,268
Thank goodness someone finally has shown the courage to say what you said, OP.

I believe votes should be limited based on how much property one owns.

If you own no property, you get three and a half votes, one of which you can keep for after the election. (In case you change your mind based on the result.)

If you own an apartment, you get two votes and a 'Thank You' card.

If you own a house, you get one vote and a respectful nod.

If you own several properties and/or huge tracts of farmland, you get no votes at all as your vote may be compromised by your business interests.

Sure, it needs some tweaking, but I think we can all agree that this would be the fairest thing to do.
 

milipod

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
7,669
Thank goodness someone finally has shown the courage to say what you said, OP.

I believe votes should be limited based on how much property one owns.

If you own no property, you get three and a half votes, one of which you can keep for after the election. (In case you change your mind based on the result.)

If you own an apartment, you get two votes and a 'Thank You' card.

If you own a house, you get one vote and a respectful nod.

If you own several properties and/or huge tracts of farmland, you get no votes at all as your vote may be compromised by your business interests.

Sure, it needs some tweaking, but I think we can all agree that this would be the fairest thing to do.
Seems fair to me.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,318
Thank goodness someone finally has shown the courage to say what you said, OP.

I believe votes should be limited based on how much property one owns.

If you own no property, you get three and a half votes, one of which you can keep for after the election. (In case you change your mind based on the result.)

If you own an apartment, you get two votes and a 'Thank You' card.

If you own a house, you get one vote and a respectful nod.

If you own several properties and/or huge tracts of farmland, you get no votes at all as your vote may be compromised by your business interests.

Sure, it needs some tweaking, but I think we can all agree that this would be the fairest thing to do.

weighting is possible, here you go

1 vote citizen
1 vote pays tax
1 vote subject to a draft
 

Rightist

Active member
Joined
Sep 9, 2015
Messages
142
Thank goodness someone finally has shown the courage to say what you said, OP.

I believe votes should be limited based on how much property one owns.

If you own no property, you get three and a half votes, one of which you can keep for after the election. (In case you change your mind based on the result.)

If you own an apartment, you get two votes and a 'Thank You' card.

If you own a house, you get one vote and a respectful nod.

If you own several properties and/or huge tracts of farmland, you get no votes at all as your vote may be compromised by your business interests.

Sure, it needs some tweaking, but I think we can all agree that this would be the fairest thing to do.
I think this is better idea than we have now but I will add a election fee like 100 Euro on the top of this. The people need to get paid working with election.
 

Windowshopper

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
8,704
I don't get why Ratio is even asking this question. I thought she would prefer some Stuart to rule us like a god but then I suppose we all have to compromise sometime.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,900
Ever since they gave catholics the right to vote the country has been going downhill, the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1791-93 was a disaster.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,069
Would it not make more sense to limit candidates to those with some grip on reality.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top