Anonymous landtrust 1d

Honestly fair, I’d be open to giving a wider range in both directions if they can demonstrate adequate IQ

0

Anonymous #2 1d

Iq tests would do this btw

5

Anonymous landtrust 1d

We learned our lesson about this with southern “literacy tests”

10

Anonymous #3 1d

No we didn’t. These are completely different

-2

Anonymous #3 1d

Maybe have some sort of test that doesn’t require knowing how to read per se. Like a comprehension test where somebody says a story or idea and you have to summarize what they said

0

Anonymous OP 1d

You’re not getting my point. Putting the right to vote behind a test-based gate, no matter what the test is, creates an opportunity to silently discriminate based on other factors. That’s especially a problem with IQ tests because A) there isn’t just one, B) intelligence isn’t just one number you can measure, and C) states have the right to provision their own elections. Republican states could easily use this to weed out anyone not adherent to their “alternative reality.”

10

Anonymous landtrust 1d

IQ tests are based on some pretty bad ideas and, in my opinion, a poor way to judge intelligence.

5

Anonymous freidenkerin 1d

They’re not perfect. But it’s hard to deny someone with an 140 iq is smarter than someone with a 80 iq

0

Anonymous #3 1d

Fair enough. I think there should be age restrictions though. Especially a cap near end of life. Maybe for things that directly affect people who are old like social security stuff, maybe that’s a special exception.

0

Anonymous landtrust 1d

Those are two very extreme scores. A simple conversation could tell you the difference between those two people just as well as any IQ test

3

Anonymous #3 1d

Yep. And so if we are trying to be objective then that’s the best we have. I just don’t think we should continue having low standards when there’s objective metrics we can hold people to

0

Anonymous landtrust 1d

This is eugenics if we’re doing it by IQ

1

Anonymous #5 1d

It’s not eugenics

0

Anonymous landtrust 1d

This entire time I’ve been telling you it’s not objective. The tests are fundamentally a measure of a subjective idea of intelligence. A good-faith IQ test can give you something that will reasonably distinguish people with disparate enough scores, but nothing is saying the tests have to be in good faith, and there’s not much evidence that a difference as significant as 10 points is meaningful at all. This is inherently not what you want it to be

4

Anonymous landtrust 1d

It 100% is lol, you’re restricting the rights of certain individuals based on perceived biological or genetic “fitness” Disenfranchising people because of a lower IQ score 100% fits this idea, especially since it’s what the eugenics movement actively advocated for Plus IQ tests are both culturally and socioeconomically biased against certain groups

1

Anonymous landtrust 1d

What if we had a civics test that tested everyone on politics, history, sociology and economics? We would offer free education on these topics and accommodations for different languages and ability levels. I think this is a better metric because it ensures that the citizens are knowledgeable.

5

Anonymous #5 1d

It’s not really eugenics, but it does have unexamined biases that would skew the results.

1

Anonymous #5 1d

So? We disenfranchise people based on wealth and if they qualify as a citizen. Many people do not get to vote in the place that they live and perhaps have lived for years.

1

Anonymous freidenkerin 1d

Dawg limiting voting to those with disabilities is literally what eugenicists did 😭

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Well, yeah, I’m against that, we shouldn’t disenfranchise groups in general?

1

Anonymous #5 1d

Sure but we already do and that’s not going to change soon. We might as well disenfranchise people who are on their way out of this world soon anyway

1

Anonymous #5 1d

Yeah but Eugenics is more about genetic changes over time and it’s more complex than just limiting voting rights. Most authoritarians limit voting rights and they’re not all eugenicists.

1

Anonymous #3 1d

They’re way more objective than “having a conversation” with someone. If you can find a more accurate test to determine intelligence that’s fine. IQ is the best we have as far as I know

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Yeah, that’s bad too.

1

Anonymous freidenkerin 1d

Why are we still advocating for tests for voting… did we not learn our lesson from Jim Crow? 🫩 Plus education disparities will always exist, this just increase inequality

1

Anonymous #5 1d

Having standards for who can and cannot vote isn’t restricting rights. You also can learn to get smarter over time. We shouldn’t have low standards

0

Anonymous #5 1d

The test I described was literally designed to be as accessible as possible (which was the problem with Jim Crow) and would need to include free education courses to be fair.

1

Anonymous freidenkerin 1d

I’d be open to tests other than iq. But I don’t understand why we can’t have standards just because some people won’t pass. That’s the point. Raise the bar and society will improve

0

Anonymous landtrust 1d

It is restricting rights, you’re inherently taking the right to vote away from people who score low on an IQ test, which isn’t even an objective measure whatsoever

1

Anonymous freidenkerin 1d

Free classes still wouldn’t make it fair? What about those with learning disabilities? Should they just not receive political representation?

1

Anonymous landtrust 1d

That’s the idea of eugenics bro, go back to 1916

1

Anonymous #5 1d

I just want society to be held to higher standards

1

Anonymous #5 1d

It’s not eugenics lol you can learn things that’s why you’re in school

1

Anonymous landtrust 1d

What? I brought up the conversation thing to show you that there wasn’t any advantage to an IQ test in your scenario. The whole point here is that IQ tests aren’t objective or accurate enough to do what you want them to. “Better than a conversation” is nowhere close to “reliable enough to be a barrier to voting”

1

Anonymous landtrust 1d

I get that, but holding it to higher standards will just allow the rich to get even richer while even more people will lose voting representation due to disparities in educational resources

1

Anonymous #3 1d

You said you can determine someone’s intelligence based on a conversation. Therefore iq tests are not needed. I said iq tests are more objective than just a conversation therefore they’re better

0

Anonymous #5 1d

Anyone can learn anything as long as you have an internet connection. Theres really no reason anymore for why we can’t start holding people to these higher standards

0

Anonymous landtrust 1d

Not everyone has a consistent internet connection…

1

Anonymous landtrust 1d

This would advantage privileged people with consistent internet access while hurting poorer communities without it

1

Anonymous #5 1d

Most people do

0

Anonymous landtrust 1d

You’re deliberately missing the point now. What in any of that is a reason to believe IQ tests are accurate or valid enough to determine who does and doesn’t get to vote?

1

Anonymous #3 1d

Have you ever met someone with an 80 iq? What about something with a 140 iq? Iq reflects intelligence

0

Anonymous landtrust 1d

Most is not all, the people that don’t would be put at a structural disadvantage for no fault of their own

1

Anonymous landtrust 1d

I believe I’m meeting someone with an 80 IQ right now

4

Anonymous landtrust 1d

But does the 80 IQ person deserve less political representation because of this?

1

Anonymous #5 1d

That’s fine. If we do nothing because of exceptions then nothing will ever happen

0

Anonymous #5 1d

Yes

0

Anonymous landtrust 1d

No, what I’m saying is if you limit the right of voting to to certain individuals, then you’re gonna discriminate against them inherently Unless you wanna own up to the discrimination, then we can’t do any of your suggestions

1

Anonymous landtrust 1d

You ran face-first into the point. This shouldn’t happen. This is a bad idea. For literally all the reasons

4

Anonymous #5 1d

It’s not discriminating. They can get smarter. This is like saying we’re discriminating against criminals by outlawing stealing

0

Anonymous landtrust 1d

Yeah, that’s an awful thing to say imo, I don’t think someone’s intellectual disability should bar them from voting and I think it makes you ableist to suggest that But if you wanna own it, sure, go ahead and say you don’t think those with intellectual disabilities should be allowed to vote

1

Anonymous landtrust 1d

Not everyone has the same access to resources, and it just so turns out the groups that are repeatedly discriminated against by laws (Native Americans, Black people, Pacific Islanders, etc.) are gonna be disproportionately hurt by this suggestion because they have proportionally less access to educational resources and the ability to learn

1

Anonymous #5 1d

We have a responsibility to look after people who can’t look after themselves. This means people with disabilities. That does not mean though that people who cannot look after themselves should vote. It’s the same reason we don’t let kids vote

0

Anonymous landtrust 1d

But, if those with intellectual disabilities can’t vote, where do they get political representation? Who advocates for their protection? I wouldn’t trust the general populace to advocate for disability rights

1

Anonymous #5 1d

Look, if you want to become educated you can use the internet and do it. You don’t need same access to resources (which is a different issue) to become educated. We need higher standards as a society and btw the poor white rural Americans would be “hurt” by this more than any minority group. But this isn’t about “hurting” any particular group. It’s about having standards

0

Anonymous #5 1d

Well we don’t trust the general populace because… the general populace isn’t smart! This is more of a reason we should not let just anyone vote

0

Anonymous landtrust 1d

Having standards hurts groups when not everyone has the same access to resources, what do you not get about that? And even if it hurts rural white people id be concerned about that too, limiting voting by any sort of sociocultural construct like IQ is going to result in mass disenfranchisement of marginalized people and groups

1

Anonymous landtrust 1d

So, now you’re against democracy too? Idk why we’re even having this conversation since you seem so hellbent on limiting people’s rights to fit your world view 😭

1

Anonymous #5 1d

I’m not against democracy, I’m against arguing for low standards

0

Anonymous landtrust 1d

You’re just repeatedly advocating for eugenics and then getting confused when I don’t support your view

0

Anonymous #5 1d

It’s not eugenics. You can use the internet to get smarter

0

Anonymous landtrust 1d

Not… not everyone has access to the internet Do I just have to keep going in fucking circles?

0

Anonymous #5 1d

Shouldn’t you show some sort of competence to vote? Like if you mentally cannot perform basic tasks maybe you legitimately shouldn’t be voting

0

Anonymous #5 1d

It’s enough

1

Anonymous OP 1d

No, because competence is subjective and based on subjectivity and social constructs which could disproportionally harm already-marginalized groups Restrictions on voting rights should be a huge no-no

1

Anonymous #5 1d

If you can’t fit a round block through the round hole I think you might be done with your voting career

1

Anonymous #5 1d

So you’d rather keep doing what we have and then things get worse. Where’s the solution?

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Yeah, I don’t think those individuals necessarily greatly change the results of elections alone plus taking away political representation from a group makes it seem easy to discriminate against them

1

Anonymous OP 1d

At that point we gotta start letting orangutans vote 😭

5

Anonymous landtrust 1d

I don’t need to have a solution to tell you this isn’t it

1

Anonymous landtrust 1d

I don’t know the exact “fix,” because there isn’t a simple one. But, I think the first major step that should be taken is that voters should advocate for an amendment striking down Citizens’ United if possible, if not then likely the best course of action will be eventual secession in like 20-30 years

1

Anonymous #3 1d

You do. That’s my standard

1

Anonymous #3 1d

I’m not interested in people who only want to tear things down. I’m interested in builders

1

Anonymous #5 1d

You’re right about citizens united but both of these things would greatly benefit everyone, including the people who would lose their voting privileges

1

Anonymous landtrust 1d

People losing their voting rights is good for them? You’re a fucking sicko lmfao

1

Anonymous #5 1d

They get the benefits of smart decisions without the work that goes into becoming intelligent

1

Anonymous landtrust 1d

Who’s to say intelligent people will make decisions that are good for non-intelligent people? That’s assuming the intelligent people are selfless and advocate for them which is quite the assumption

1

Anonymous landtrust 1d

Who said I want you interested in me? You don’t know how to critically evaluate your own ideas. I have zero interest in your thoughts on anything

2

Anonymous #3 1d

So if all you do is criticize and you have no ideas on your own, then why are you here?

1

Anonymous landtrust 1d

What you’re not understanding is that it’s just as important to reject bad ideas as it is to come up with good ones. Most ideas are bad. Sometimes doing something is worse than doing nothing; your idea is worse than doing nothing

1

Anonymous #3 1d

If it’s just as important then why aren’t you doing it?

1

Anonymous #3 1d

Also, it’s not a bad idea to hold society to standards. Stealing is illegal for a reason

1