Should we restrict some people from voting? Matchup 1

The following two posts are based on this article:

Should we restrict people from voting?


POST ONE, by Anonymous7

Aristocracy = Aristos ("good," "best," "most fit") + Kratos ("power," "rule")

    My advice would be to learn more about how research is conducted. You ask if "sample size wasn't enough to be valid" - the fact that they have publishable results indicates that their sample size is large enough to get a statistically significant correlation.

    Now, the "rationality" argument is interesting - I've noticed that people such as yourself tend to define "rational" as "supports my preconceived opinions." How exactly would you test how "rational" a particular argument is? (Much less how "rational" a person is, as if rationality was dispositional.)

    China is run by people the ruling party would certainly consider to be the best and brightest. And I would agree with you that their results are terrible in pretty much everything but GDP growth rate. It doesn't work to screen political power-holders for ideological purity, period. This remains true no matter what the ideology is.



POST TWO, by Anonymous8

I had to laugh when I read this...

"And when selecting, I might not select based on traditional IQ tests..."

Might I be so bold as to suggest facebook quizzes as the best means to determine who should have the vote.

I don't know the exact proportion of the population with an IQ higher than 160, but I'm guessing it's max. 1%. Once you strip out of that anyone who fails your other test - poor memory, not rational, possesses ovaries - you'd be left with around 0.5% of the population.

You're suggesting that the overwhelming majority of the population should spend their lives in thrall to the whims of the minority.

This seems remarkable far from the fundamentally American concept of "rule of the people, by the people...". Not what I'd expect to hear from someone who continuously berates Obama's supposed anti-Americanism.

poll by twiigs.com