4 ms·

> the government needs to make voting for federal elections compulsory in order to get people to take a stance / have an opinion (yes, you will get a fine if yo

> the government needs to make voting for federal elections compulsory in order to get people to take a stance / have an opinion (yes, you will get a fine if you don’t vote!) This seems like such a bad idea. Ideally, the democratic process taps ‘the wisdom of crowds’ and allows a society to make reasonable decisions. But all human beings are not capable of contributing to good decision making. Roughly the 15% of people have IQs below 85, making them effectively mentally retarded. And beyond that, a huge number of people are grossly uninformed about contemporary political issues, history, science, etc. The best contribution that some folks can make to the democratic process is not participating in the democratic process. Moreover, if you force the unintelligent and uninformed to vote, you’re empowering the media to run the country. When someone’s politics are uninformed by firmly held principals and a solid understanding of history and current events, they will be more susceptible to be steered by biased media.

ubercore 5y ago
I think your point here would be far stronger without the intelligence argument. I don't want to tell someone they can't vote because they didn't pass an IQ test threshold.
- L_226 5y ago
  You don't need to tell them they can't vote, you just need to tell them there is free beer at the footy on that day /s
  - gonzo41 5y ago
    Well, elections usually happen around the AFL and Rugby finals, so there's a fair bit of drinking happening. So why not vote, get a snag and then get drunk. Seems like a win win for everyone.
- marcusverus 5y ago
  > I don't want to tell someone they can't vote because they didn't pass an IQ test threshold. You've misunderstood my comment. I'm not saying that we should prevent unintelligent people from voting, I'm saying we shouldn't actively seek out their input by compelling them to vote. We know that poorly educated people are the least likely to vote, and we know that educational achievement correlates strongly with IQ--so by requiring voting, you will be significantly increasing the proportion of voters who are not intellectually capable of making an informed decision about how we can run a society. You do not seek out the advice of the least intelligent people you know. Even if, out of a stubborn commitment to egalitarian ideals, you did ask for their advice, you'd be a fool to weight it equally with the people who you hold in high regard. So why the hell would we, as a society, choose to do so by compelling the vote?
gonzo41 5y ago
I'm Australian. Respectfully, you're totally wrong. Government should be for everyone. Parties should have a platform that is for a majority. For the most part, Australia has populist fairly centrist small c conservative governments. It's getting bad at the moment here mostly because the current governing party is past due for it's turn on the opposition benches. And it also seems that everyone's having a go at being corrupt at the moment. Hopefully we get ontop of that. Anyway, folk with low IQ's making bad choices isn't really a problem. We have optional preferential voting (rank choice), it's hard enough to make an informed decision above or below the line each time and I do research! Most of the uniformed, just vote along family lines. Anyway, everyone has a right to vote and a duty in some respect. Making it harder for some, by making it opt in, will lead to more problems then having disengaged voters participating in haphazard ways.
- c_o_n_v_e_x 5y ago
  Re: voting, it's not a "right" if it's compulsory. It's an obligation.
  - gonzo41 5y ago
    it's a pretty low impost obligation. But I'd refer to it as a minor duty to the community.
    - swader999 5y ago
      Not voting though is a form of protest in many cases. I suppose though even if it is compulsory you could show up and spoil your ballot. I'd be fine with that.
      - gonzo41 5y ago
        Many do just that.
  - strken 5y ago
    What's the practical meaningful difference between exercising your right to not vote, vs fulfilling your obligation to vote by showing up to the polling place and drawing dicks on the ballot paper? Pretend you're an Australian and have a long tradition of fining people minor sums of money for not showing up. Why would you change to non-compulsory voting?
whatshisface 5y ago
>Roughly the 15% of people have IQs below 85, making them effectively mentally retarded. And beyond that, a huge number of people are grossly uninformed about contemporary political issues, history, science, etc. The best contribution that some folks can make to the democratic process is not participating in the democratic process. You're thinking of the role of democracy as a way to solve problems, but it also plays a role in fairly allocating resources between sectors of society. The IQ < 85 demographic might not seem valuable to the IQ > 115 demographic, but in fact that is why they need to vote, to counterbalance the self-interest of the IQ > 115 demographic. Likewise, PhDs in political science might be prone to think that highschool dropouts are not valuable contributors, but that is exactly why highschool dropouts need to vote - to counterbalance the will of the political science PhDs to support policies that only help PhDs.
- jacobr1 5y ago
  The paternalistic argument is that the low-IQ voters will be misled, and vote _against_ their own interests. That they just will vote for whatever higher-IQ group can best market to them, and will get a basket of outcomes that is, at best, indifferent to their specific needs. This argument is very dismissive the agency of these individuals. I would argue that largely happens today, but not on the basis of IQ. Large chunks of western countries believe all sorts of (what I would consider) crazy things. And IQ isn't the driving force of belief here. None of this is an argument to disenfranchise segments of the populace. But it is also increasingly naive to believe that voters vote on the basis of rational self-interest, and we need to have serious discussions about how to counter the forces that drive that, be it IQ, misinformation, in-group/out-group dynamics and more.
babesh 5y ago
Wait till you hear about what the IQ > 130 demographic think of the IQ <= 130 demographic and what the IQ > 140 demographic think of the IQ <= 140 demographic.
IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
Correct. There is a natural experiment on this. See which countries have compulsory voting and see how they have fared since. The results are not pretty. On the flipside, the strongest "free" countries, switzerland and USA, have had voluntary parricipation since time immemorial...

ubercore 5y ago

I think your point here would be far stronger without the intelligence argument. I don't want to tell someone they can't vote because they didn't pass an IQ test threshold.

L_226 5y ago
You don't need to tell them they can't vote, you just need to tell them there is free beer at the footy on that day /s
- gonzo41 5y ago
  Well, elections usually happen around the AFL and Rugby finals, so there's a fair bit of drinking happening. So why not vote, get a snag and then get drunk. Seems like a win win for everyone.
marcusverus 5y ago
> I don't want to tell someone they can't vote because they didn't pass an IQ test threshold. You've misunderstood my comment. I'm not saying that we should prevent unintelligent people from voting, I'm saying we shouldn't actively seek out their input by compelling them to vote. We know that poorly educated people are the least likely to vote, and we know that educational achievement correlates strongly with IQ--so by requiring voting, you will be significantly increasing the proportion of voters who are not intellectually capable of making an informed decision about how we can run a society. You do not seek out the advice of the least intelligent people you know. Even if, out of a stubborn commitment to egalitarian ideals, you did ask for their advice, you'd be a fool to weight it equally with the people who you hold in high regard. So why the hell would we, as a society, choose to do so by compelling the vote?

gonzo41 5y ago

I'm Australian. Respectfully, you're totally wrong. Government should be for everyone. Parties should have a platform that is for a majority. For the most part, Australia has populist fairly centrist small c conservative governments. It's getting bad at the moment here mostly because the current governing party is past due for it's turn on the opposition benches. And it also seems that everyone's having a go at being corrupt at the moment. Hopefully we get ontop of that. Anyway, folk with low IQ's making bad choices isn't really a problem. We have optional preferential voting (rank choice), it's hard enough to make an informed decision above or below the line each time and I do research! Most of the uniformed, just vote along family lines. Anyway, everyone has a right to vote and a duty in some respect. Making it harder for some, by making it opt in, will lead to more problems then having disengaged voters participating in haphazard ways.

c_o_n_v_e_x 5y ago
Re: voting, it's not a "right" if it's compulsory. It's an obligation.
- gonzo41 5y ago
  it's a pretty low impost obligation. But I'd refer to it as a minor duty to the community.
  - swader999 5y ago
    Not voting though is a form of protest in many cases. I suppose though even if it is compulsory you could show up and spoil your ballot. I'd be fine with that.
    - gonzo41 5y ago
      Many do just that.
- strken 5y ago
  What's the practical meaningful difference between exercising your right to not vote, vs fulfilling your obligation to vote by showing up to the polling place and drawing dicks on the ballot paper? Pretend you're an Australian and have a long tradition of fining people minor sums of money for not showing up. Why would you change to non-compulsory voting?

whatshisface 5y ago

>Roughly the 15% of people have IQs below 85, making them effectively mentally retarded. And beyond that, a huge number of people are grossly uninformed about contemporary political issues, history, science, etc. The best contribution that some folks can make to the democratic process is not participating in the democratic process. You're thinking of the role of democracy as a way to solve problems, but it also plays a role in fairly allocating resources between sectors of society. The IQ < 85 demographic might not seem valuable to the IQ > 115 demographic, but in fact that is why they need to vote, to counterbalance the self-interest of the IQ > 115 demographic. Likewise, PhDs in political science might be prone to think that highschool dropouts are not valuable contributors, but that is exactly why highschool dropouts need to vote - to counterbalance the will of the political science PhDs to support policies that only help PhDs.

jacobr1 5y ago
The paternalistic argument is that the low-IQ voters will be misled, and vote _against_ their own interests. That they just will vote for whatever higher-IQ group can best market to them, and will get a basket of outcomes that is, at best, indifferent to their specific needs. This argument is very dismissive the agency of these individuals. I would argue that largely happens today, but not on the basis of IQ. Large chunks of western countries believe all sorts of (what I would consider) crazy things. And IQ isn't the driving force of belief here. None of this is an argument to disenfranchise segments of the populace. But it is also increasingly naive to believe that voters vote on the basis of rational self-interest, and we need to have serious discussions about how to counter the forces that drive that, be it IQ, misinformation, in-group/out-group dynamics and more.

babesh 5y ago

Wait till you hear about what the IQ > 130 demographic think of the IQ <= 130 demographic and what the IQ > 140 demographic think of the IQ <= 140 demographic.

IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago

Correct. There is a natural experiment on this. See which countries have compulsory voting and see how they have fared since. The results are not pretty. On the flipside, the strongest "free" countries, switzerland and USA, have had voluntary parricipation since time immemorial...