Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Right twice a day.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                 

Weight Everyone's Vote Based on IQ

The geeks shall inherit the earth.
  (+6, -24)(+6, -24)(+6, -24)
(+6, -24)
  [vote for,
against]

How about weighting everyone's vote based on their IQ, just to give the smart people a little more say in how the government is run? If your IQ is exactly 100, your vote counts for 1. However, if you have an IQ of 140, you get 1.4 of a vote. If your IQ is 80, you get 0.8 of a vote in the election.

Problems: You'd have to have everyone tested and measured with a standard IQ test. This is only a minor problem, however (as damaging as it may be to a few egos, it will massage, by definition, just as many). The big problem is that under this system we'd no longer have anonymous voting. I suppose that if everyone voted by computer that a computer could tabulate the votes and weight them simultaneously, and then void all record of how everyone voted, periodically during Election Day.

You'd have the same risk of fraud as in any other election, I suppose--along with the low scorers complaining about lack of equal representation, but then, that's what the whole idea's about. . . .

deacon, May 16 2001

Plato's republic http://www.friesian.com/plato.htm
[hippo, May 16 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]

[link]






       No no no no no no no. Weighted voting is a good idea, but the weight should be on E.Q. -- ethics quotient. Better yet, forget the voting. Just give the folks with the highest E.Q. the positions of power. And call them philosopher kings. Wait a minute.... this sounds familiar....
globaltourniquet, May 16 2001
  

       Pretty much negates the dictum that all men are created equal, eh? You'll have to prove that a high score on an IQ test correlates with ethical wisdom. Start, perhaps, by examining the IQs and ethics of the ruling elite in Nazi Germany.
Dog Ed, May 16 2001
  

       or by how strong their psychic powers are,obviously
technobadger, May 16 2001
  

       is iq test the best test?   

       dont people with massive iq's 200 ish tend 2 be a little unstable?
edski, May 16 2001
  

       Let's weight everyone's vote based on weight. That way our elected officials will reflect the needs of the greatest biomass of voters. "Fat Cats in Washington" will have new meaning. We can safely reduce the voting age to 5. Thanksgiving will be celebrated by many on November 4th. Size-ism will reverse itself as those of great girth are seen to be more influential. Also, there's no breach of anonymity... just stand on the scale, make your picks and pull the lever. The voting machine will pro-rate your vote automatically. Oh, but take of your overcoat and shoes first.
ejs, May 17 2001
  

       I can be fit and influential with the help of my trusty fifty-pound dumbbells I forgot to remove from being packaging-taped to my ass on my way to the voting scales....
globaltourniquet, May 17 2001
  

       Isn't there some "-tarian" type word that describes a government by intellectuals? "Intellectarian" perhaps?
mrnesbit, May 17 2001
  

       "Oligarchy" - government by an elite (as opposed to "Democracy" - government by the people, considered by Plato as the second-lowest form of government (above tyranny). The word comes from the Greek "demos" which I don't think is a particularly respectful word for "the people" - more like "the mob").

By the way - Did you mean "Weigh" in the title, rather than "Weight"?
hippo, May 17 2001
  

       [hippo]: No, I think he meant 'weight' - 'apply a weighting to'.
Although Plato did not, as far as I am aware, discuss it, any government could be regarded as an elite by those who are not a part of it. And because of the word which *we* use ('those who are chosen'), they'd be correct.
angel, May 17 2001
  

       This raises the question of what exactly you think an election is for. Do you vote for a political representative who you feel will best represent your views or are you voting for the person(s) you think will do the best job?
If you feel that the first option is the case then there's no call for any sort of weighting system. If you think that it's the second option then surely it's the politician's who need to be tested, not the voters.
DrBob, May 17 2001
  

       Vernon thinks everybody actually is equal in his own predefined way, we don't want him to weigh in with his Opinion - trust me on this one. There has been a massive increase in average weight of children - will age no longer be a factor? Do Siamese Twins get to vote twice? It's a heady proposition.
thumbwax, May 17 2001
  

       DogEd: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others...   

       Four legs good! Two legs bad!
MrWrong, May 17 2001
  

       there are all sorts of statistical questons that would need to be answered, giving values to votes based on standard deviations above or below the mean, factoring in error for abberant individuals (wacked out smarties, silly people with non-silly ideas) performing f-tests on different levels of ethical behavior...i think the simple math of four-legs and two-legs [or maybe even one-(wo)man one (wo)vote] might still be the best approach
1MilesWest2, Oct 30 2001
  

       Lets assume that people with high IQ's are no less ethical than people with low IQ's. Would you rather have a policy instituted by those with higher IQ's or those policies instituted by those with low IQ's? It's a simple question. I don't have a high IQ, but by the way that people are voting against this idea, I don't think very many people on this site to either. The only difference between me, and them, is I don't dislike those who are smarter than me. I have a friend that got a 32 or 34 on his ACT's and I really admire him. I think he should get more of a vote than I do, because he KNOWS more. I think people with PHD's should goet more weight to their vote, because they KNOW more!   

       I think if you were going to do it though, you would have to do a lot of other stuff. Why do we let some people vote, and we don't let former fellons vote at all? Our system is all or nothing. I think fellons aught be allowed to vote, but probably with a lower weighting. Nothing should be all or nothing. They should be able to at least participate in the process. It would make them feel like more of a citizen. Depending on the number, and seriousness of the crime, they would get half a vote.   

       This gets into the matter of an ethics quotient. If you have had a ticket for drunk driving, than you care more about your needs than the needs of others. Each ticket should reduce the weight of your vote by 10%.   

       Wouldn't it be funny, if you got so many tickets that you had a negative weighting? That when you voted for someone it had the affect of voting against them!   

       How could you reward people with good ethics? Perhaps each week worked in voluntary community service would result in an increase your voting power by 10%. There are lots of other activities that should result in an increased or decreased weighting.   

       Should I treat the responses with the scorn that I think they deserve, or should I try and realize there are people out there with feelings? That is what I like about the internet, is I can say really mean things, with out retribution. I feel like I can be as rude as I want. But I always end up regretting it, but do you ever get tired of listening to yourself? "Who gets to pick which IQ test is used? I can just see politicians messing with the wording of questions to make their supporters score higher." What? An IQ test is an IQ test. Just because something can be gamed, does mean that it shouldn't be used. Should we not use hammers, because, "What if politicians hit people with them?" Or "What if people only buy hammers from Rich corporations, which will only make Rich Corporations richer! That wouldn't be fair!" Does that make me a disagreeable person, that I have that reaction to your statement? Just because a tool, like IQ test can be misused, doesn’t mean they are bad. I would assume that the writer of this ID wouldn’t allow politicians to write their own IQ test.   

       It makes me sort of angry that people would write such an intellectually lazy comment as, “Who gets to pick which IQ test is used. I can just see politicians messing with the wording of questions to make their supporters score higher.”   

       How would one do this? Do Republicans to better on certain IQ test, and Democrats do better on others? Are you saying some people are born republicans? No. You are not saying anything. You are just wasting space.   

       "hmmm... sounds good... in theory... like communism... yes... precisely." What? What does communism have to do with IQ test. Lets use the form of argument where I mention something bad and say stuff like, hm, well, hm, well, sounds like, hm, Hitler.   

       Re: “The problem with basing anything on intelligence is that even the smartest person has occasional flashes of stupidity. For that matter, even the dumbest person has occasional flashes of brilliance.”   

       Yes, but statistically speaking, people with higher intelligence will, by definition, have fewer flashes of stupidity.
myclob, Mar 12 2005
  

       [thumbwax] wrote: "Vernon thinks everybody actually is equal in his own predefined way, we don't want him to weigh in with his Opinion - trust me on this one"   

       Heh. I have written that everybody is equal in the sense that everybody comes equipped with selfishness. I never said that everyone came equipped with the same amount of selfishness. But in regards to this Idea here, and the notion of an Ethics Quotient, I think it reasonable to just get at the heart of the matter and seek a Selfishness Quotient. Then, the more selfish you are, the LESS say you should have in elections -- and nobody should be allowed to seek office who has an SQ greater than 50% of the average SQ. Heh heh heh...
Vernon, Mar 16 2005
  

       German people are an intelligent and well educated nation. However, their electoral choices in the past have been somewhat unfortunate. As several million headstones will testify. [-]
etherman, Mar 16 2005
  

       What would you think of a law that outlawed 2nd generation millionaires?   

       First generation millionaires are the people we need in government, people with new ideas.   

       But we don't want an aristocracy.
myclob, Mar 18 2005
  

       [myclob] there are some statements you made that have a rather odd sort of logic. (you're not [deacon] by any chance are you? (some statements are interesting, however.)   

       //what does communism have to do with IQ tests?// obviously we'd be in a non-totalitarian communist system should such a weighted system be employed with heavy weighting.   

       I find [thumbwax]'s summary of [Vernon]'s view amazingly close to my own. I think that if you'd pick anyone you like out of a crowd, that they'd be able to run circles around you in a specific area of knowledge.   

       [Vernon]'s Selfishness Quotient is a concept worth propogating IMHO.
Zimmy, Mar 19 2005
  

       "Communism: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members." Except in your mind where you know that most people in America think that communism is "Bad" and you want to associate my idea with something that is "Bad", except for that, what does my idea have to do with "a theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property"?
myclob, Jun 24 2005
  

       Yeah an IQ test that is based entirely of knowledge of the bible. H
10clock, Jun 24 2005
  

       What?
myclob, Aug 15 2005
  

       Fable Quotient.
bristolz, Aug 15 2005
  

       I dunno. Any vote based on a preference just can't be all that intelligently cast. That's so ... "I'd rather just see than do it".
The flaw is characterizing voters as more or less intelligent and implying that the most intelligent people don't run, but rather vote for office seekers -- the pool of which represents what is fashionable in emotional merchandising (trendy, rich, hoary, feng shui, breathy). NOTA
reensure, Aug 15 2005
  

       people arent equal..but should have equal rights (only to avoid all the confusion) there are too many stupid people, and some can get wild eventho they're stupid..mmm..most of them can.. revolutionary stupid..its ego business ).. besides, its easier to buy stupid people's votes, so not a politician would agree this.. and how about this law - more expencive food for fat men, or americans (since these are synonyms here)? what? you get a new profession - getting food for fatties with their money.. but again, wouldnt that job have to be payed as well? whats better: either to pay more for food or to pay a thin man to get you food? to have a thin brother? what would thre brotherless do? hm, i think theres no way to making americans or men reduce their weight..
faula, Jul 03 2008
  

       just as smart as weighting votes based on any other attribute: colour, race, creed... pardon me while a bit of instilled Heinleinian philosophy shows through, but if you're voting for the good of the country you should have proven that you value said country.
FlyingToaster, Jul 03 2008
  

       IQ isn't a great representation of one's intelligence, really.
Bukkakinator, Jul 03 2008
  

       I disagree with your idea. Personally, I'd prefer a voting system that weighs a vote based on the person's thorough understanding of each candidate's positions. That way we could lower the total influence of people who vote along party lines without learning about other candidates. Unfortunately, there would probably be an inequality created for non/near-english speakers as well as for the mentally handicapped, etc. Because of that, it's a dream - a half-baked dream.
topofthepops, Jul 03 2008
  

       // on the thorough understanding of each candidate's positions// or if we didn't have time, we could give proxies to people who (hopefully) do understand the issues...
FlyingToaster, Jul 03 2008
  

       I do not really see the advantage of weighting towards voters with high IQ. I can see the advantage of high IQ politicians running the country, but an election is about fair representation. Smart voters will not necessarily vote in the general interest, they will vote in their own interest.   

       // on the thorough understanding of each candidate's positions//   

       Could work. The cynic in me suspects there would be zero tricky questions about the economy, or who was getting special favours. But if you have a way to ensure a good set of questions please post and I might give it a bun.   

       Good questions would be:   

       1) What each candidate plans to do with the economy.   

       2) What the candidates have done previously in office (where applicable)   

       3) Questions regarding ugly rumours. This would hinder smear campaigns, as voters believing false rumours would answer incorrectly.
Bad Jim, Jul 03 2008
  

       //"demos" which I don't think is a particularly respectful word for "the people" //   

       <very late pedantry> Actually, it's at worst a value-neutral word for "the people", sometimes even given as a personal name. The derogatory terms are ochlos and ochlocracy. </vlp>
pertinax, Jul 04 2008
  

       This would be a good idea, but I don't think IQ is a very accurate measurement of ones overall intelligence or their ability to choose good leaders.
apocalyps956, Jul 05 2008
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle