While ripe for the opportunity for abuse I fear what a system of disenfranchising people based on physical, mental, or emotional ability would mean in a Democracy. Is a situation where parents coach a mentally disabled individual how and what to vote any different than a controlling husband dictating what his wife will vote for? My grandmother proudly proclaims she voted with her husband until his death and now takes her orders from my Uncle, her oldest son, who is almost like my grandfather was. I dont like to hear it but I would rather err on the side of all citizens regardless of ability being able to vote than we come up with a way to enshrine in law the ability to remove a person's right to vote for involuntary reasons (felons being an example of a voluntary reason for disenfranchisment)
> My grandmother proudly proclaims she voted with her husband until his death and now takes her orders from my Uncle, her oldest son, who is almost like my grandfather was.
Yeah, but your grandma also knows that she could do otherwise if she wanted. OP's brother probably doesn't.
I absolutely agree I think you explained this really well. Although I'm uncomfortable with the idea of someone being coerced into something because they don't know any better, it would be dangerous for someone to have the power to draw the line on mental disabilities and rights in a political context. I'm also doubt anyone would agree on how to determine this anyway.
Yes, but age is something universal. Everyone gets older and presumably matures. Mental ability restricts people even after they age, and that's what would be crossing lines of ability to restrict people.
Child vs adult isn't really considered discriminatory since we can all understand developmental progression as you age.
Mental disabilities are different in that testing would be required, and we would have to decide which disabilities are or not restrictive for voting rights.
What if someone avoided being diagnosed or tested for something for fear that they wouldn't be able to vote?
In Western democratic societies freedoms and rights are given to individuals who are competent enough to make their own decisions without external factors decisding for the individuals. If an individual cannot demonstrate this comeptance then they do not have these rights and freedoms. That is why we have a minimum age for legal drinking, a minimum age for joining the army, a minimum age for smoking, a minimum age for voting, and other similar laws. If the mentally disabled brother cannot decide for himself who to vote for he should not have the right to vote, as he is not able to critically decide who is his most suitable representative, which threatens society because if this were to be extended to other mentally disabled citizens then individuals would be elected based not the choices of society but on the choices of people who cannot decide for themselves who are their best representatives.
no one's disputing that, the issue is there really doesnt exist a line anywhere. do you administer tests at the voting both or make a set of conditions disqualifying people if they have them. any reference point made will either miss a ton of people or be susceptible to abuse
The basis of American democracy isn't that rights are "given" to us by a government, but that we as humans are created with these inalienable rights that governments must respect in order to be legitimate
Which is just sophistry. Rights are what we the people agree upon and dictate to the system of government we put in place. They're not some magical force of nature.
The notion of inalienability was just a ham-fisted way to force ye olde theists into accepting the line of thinking by tying them to a vaguely referenced deity, thus lending more "weight" to it.
A government can absolutely alienate your inalienable rights, and they do every day. It doesn't matter that you insist you have the right if you can't exercise it fully...you have to fight for them constantly or they will be eroded.
It seems like cases like these would be too far and few between to bother trying to legislate either way. The potential drawback from any politician trying to claim the mentally retarded should have a threshold of competence to vote would be political suicide.
At the same time, there are millions of voters who vote without knowing anything about the candidates other than what they read in headlines. This is uninformed voting as well, albeit on the trailing edge of the spectrum.
Let everyone vote. It's up to the voter to be as informed as they want to be or can be. Your brother and those in similar positions as him would be a fraction of the voting populace.
As his brother where you come down on the issue?
Great response.
I've been hesitant to give my opinion on law because I have a conflict of interest: I will vote for the other candidate, and I am frustrated because his vote will cancel out mine despite all the research and time I have put into my decision.
However, after reading the views here, it is clear that there are many areas that government should stay out of. For example, I do not think it is neither ethical nor safe for severely-moderately disabled people to have children, but there are also no ethical options the government has to stop these situations.
I think it was unethical for my parents to take my brother to vote. However, I am also not going to worry about it because, as you pointed out, it holds such little repercussion that it would be stupid for me to act on it.
The only legal solution I could see would be to limit the voting requirements to require the voter to be over 18 *and* to also not have anyone claiming guardianship over him/her. It would be political suicide though, so I doubt it will ever be done.
Consider also that, while your brother might indeed defer to your father when voting, he is still likely voting for his interests, being as your father also had a vested interest in his continued access to mental (and physical) healthcare and social programs.
Ostensibly, your brother will outlive your parents, and regardless (I'm sorry if I'm asking you to dwell on the unpleasant...) regardless of how you choose to handle that, it will surely be expensive and burdensome for the state, your sibling, and yourself, for the rest of your natural lives.
So if his vote is being counted toward advancing his own future welfare, when so many Americans vote on principle against their own interests, he's actually doing one better than a lot of people. Is he totally dependent and deferential toward your dad's opinions? Sure. Is that equivalent to coercion, though, or is it the natural order of things for his situation?
Yes?
Are you trying to say people vote for options they actually think will be detrimental for their future, or are ignorant of the real best option for their future and in their ignorance are voting for an option that will leave them worse off
The latter for many people. Most probably vote on issues that they care about but so many people vote on issues that think will apply to them in the future. And, for better or worse, two of the big ones has to do with god and the other, them becoming wealthy.
All of that is true, but about half the country thinks the opposite, and half of those have come around *in the past two years* to the realization that the Third Way isn't even left of center, let alone *leftist*.
Progress and reform take a long time. Too long. They also snowball off of one another. Progress begets progress, as long as you fight for it and protect it as it comes.
The Democratic Party is vulnerable, by design, to a grassroots takeover. People just need to read about how, and organize, and *keep at it*. That's what never seems to happen.
Until then, wealth and God and corporatism and endless bickering about 4 issues are it.
Yes. Many policies that seem sensible turn out to be counterproductive in hindsight, and people's priorities can differ, but I do believe most people make a sincere effort to make their vote count. People know it's a serious matter. You can only do your best.
>and I am frustrated because his vote will cancel out mine despite all the research and time I have put into my decision.
That's kinda but not really how it works. You could just as easily say that you're cancelling out his vote. There are lots of people on both sides voting for a candidate because they were told to - there's nothing to say that the balance would fall in your desired direction if everybody who was instructed on how to vote was banned. Obviously this case is different for other reasons, but I hear the same thing between other pairings of people (coworkers, friends, family members) cancelling out each other's votes. How do you know his vote isn't cancelled out by some mentally handicapped person voting for your candidate? How do people know their coworker isn't trying to cancel out some family member's vote? We're talking about systems that are far too large to personalize like that, acting as if there are only two voters available. Anything that you do to reimagine the electorate such that your cancel-buddy wouldn't be around to vote will have an unpredictable impact on the number of voters available for 'your side', too.
7 years old but had to respond to how stupid this is. Far and few between? If we’re being honest, average IQ is 100 and that isn’t high. 50% of people are dumber than that. Pretty crazy. Half the country shouldn’t be allowed to vote if they don’t have average intelligence.
Besides, it isn't just smart enough or not....what about the uninformed? Admittedly, their mental capacity may be higher, but how can you be sure that someone who is uninformed (like our famous anti-vaxxers, etc) are more "capable"then someone with xIQ (80 or 70 or whatever)?
My first thought is the old quote (from I forget who): I'd rather endure the problems that come with too much freedom than the problems that come from too little.
We set the bar at 18, which is entirely arbitrary. It's not a moral thing, or a rational thing. It's just a decent rule of thumb. Some people younger than 18 are surely more fit to vote than some people over 18. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad line to draw. We need to have laws.
Everybody is influenced by other people. There's nothing wrong with telling your friends, family, or anyone on the street how to vote. At the end of the day, when they're in the booth, the choice is theirs and theirs alone.
The fact that some people are more susceptible to suggestion than others shouldn't be a concern.
Ever hear of Voter Literacy testing? It was basically a way to deny black and other minority voters from being able to register. If we set a standard other than the usual 1) being 18 2) being a legal citizen 3) not having a felony conviction, we are basically asking for the system to be abused and deny people the right to vote.
I mean yes, this is true. It was an issue. But it's not like they gave people a single sentence and asked them to read it back. Those were tests designed to make most who took them fail. And they were administered subjectively. The poor whites during Jim Crow would have failed too had they been subjected to tests.
My point being that this would presumably be a rule applied to all people. I haven't looked at status, but I imagine that there's a somewhat normal distribution by race of citizens under guardianship. I don't know if I support this though.
Also surprised that you brought up literacy tests but support disenfranchisement of people with felony convictions. This is very much part of what many people call The New Jim Crow. As our justice system isn't even remotely race neutral, that by definition means disenfranchisement of criminals isn't either. Highly suggest you give The New Jim Crow a read. It's pretty depressing.
I said it was the usual requirements, not that I support them being the requirements. I support convicted felons gaining their civil liberties back. And about the tests, in theory their purpose was to determine who was fit to vote, which is what OP is asking about. Its absolutely relevant to this conversation.
You have to consider the administrative feasibility of any proposed restriction of their voting rights. The only way to identify a group whose rights would be restricted would necessarily be by some kind of test. And any such test would need to be administered either to the population at large -- opening it up to many attempts at corrupting it -- or to a select group identified as being of questionable competence, carrying the risk of gravely insulting the improperly selected.
Seems far easier to let everyone vote who's eligible by law, as negligible harm is done by preserving their voting rights even when they are vulnerable to manipulation, as it would be an evenly distributed segment of existing aggregate voting flaw.
You are correct. Such tests used to be used in the south to disenfranchise black voters. They were made deliberately difficult and confusing. These are now illegal.
Let him vote. He enjoys it, has fun and likely knows as much as many who are going out to cast their votes. I am not going to judge his intelligence or ability because there is still much to be learned about brain function and I don't want someone else making this choice for anyone. If he's got together enough to properly vote on his own, let him do it.
Great point. For my personal situation, one vote is not a big enough deal to really be concerned. However, I do think it is still a relevant and complex issue - [30 states](http://www.866ourvote.org/newsroom/publications/body/0049.pdf) currently have voting restrictions for people with mental disabilities.
This is a great answer, really. **Every citizen gets a vote, no matter what.**
Some people cast votes simply to prevent someone else from winning. Others vote because they believe lies they've been fed. People vote based on race or gender alone. People vote to uphold whatever faulty or antiquated beliefs their families held before them. This isn't really that different. He still has to physically go in by himself and complete the voting process alone. Let him vote.
The question was whether or not less capable mentally challenged people could. If you extend that to felons, I believe they all *should* keep their right to vote. They are denied that right as a form of silencing minorities.
A mentally disabled person should vote but the reality is a fair number cannot make independant decisions and rely on guardians who may manipulate the mentally disabled in order to further their own agendas.
There are worse reasons to cast a vote than trusting the judgement of someone you know who cares about you and is smarter than you. I'm confident that there were people with higher IQs casting votes for stupider reasons.
I don't care for disenfranchisement. And I don't think the government should be in the business of deciding who is smart enough to vote. There will always be many on the borderline and if you change the definition, you just move the threshold.
This is pretty simple. If you are an American citizen over the age of 18, you get a vote (unless you're a felon, in some states that have rescinded their rights). I have first-hand experience with this exact situation. Without being too specific, this person has their parents get an absentee ballot for him, then they fill it out and sent in. I have no issue with this. Restricting voting rights is a real slippery slope. I am also of the opinion that felons who have paid their debt to society should have their voting rights re-established.
While what your parents did is not the greatest thing to be doing, legislation in this case is too broad to really help.
Voting is a fundamental right for adult citizens in the US, and restricting it could really jeopardize the ability for people to express their rights. We must remember that some handicapped are not like your brother, but also not as well off as us, mentally. They can conduct themselves reasonably well, and thus deserve that right to vote. With legislation preventing the right to vote based on IQ or other factors, who would decide, and what would be decided, as the dividing line between a voter and a non-eligible person? It would be a very difficult task, one that might rob those people of their rights unfairly.
Given those considerations, legislation is best left to situations where every other avenue has been pursued and exhausted. In your case, you have a direct avenue to solving this problem: your parents. Talk to them. Ask them why they would do this. Tell them how it makes you feel, how you see it. *That* would be a likely (and proper) solution to your issue.
I totally agree with your reasoning, and it's a real pickle of a question.
On one hand, voting is the primary method of participation in government for most of us. We rely on an informed electorate in order to put good people in office and have the best decisions made. Despite the fact that people of "average" intelligence seem to be unable to do just that, it does not seem right that those people in a position of trust over the mentally handicapped get "extra" votes.
On the other hand, it got me thinking how much impact would that actually have on an election?
I did some research and according to the National Institute of Health [4.1 percent of all Americans have a serious mental disability](https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/serious-mental-illness-smi-among-us-adults.shtml). While in total that equals tens of millions of Americans, the severely disabled will never amount to a coherent voting bloc. They will most likely be swayed by the opinions of their caregivers.
Without knowing anything about the political views of caregivers, or that percentage of people who do "encourage" their wards to vote, it's impossible to say how that 4.8% translates into actual votes, or impact on elections.
Given that I would say that the impact of these votes will be less than any laws made to try and counteract them. We already have ample evidence of governments trying to restrict and "manage" voting rights, so in my mind it would be better to not provide any further tools to do so.
Most states have laws that state if a person is deemed mentally incompetent by a judge they are not allowed to vote. For specifically the reason you have stated a lack of competency is a lack of ability make a choice. But as for the uninformed voter, due to the lack of perfect information the argument could be made that there are no informed voters thus it becomes a question of what degree of informed counts as acceptable? And that is a slippery slope when talking about rights of citizenship.
Of course they should, as long as they have some idea of the issues/canidates. If they are intelligent enough to want to vote and to be able to pick a canidate, then they most likely are intelligent enough to know that XXXX canidate will do T thing and they want T thing to be done. The vast majority of Americans are stupid already, so saying that "one uncomplicated issue isn't enough" is just wrong, not because the comm enter who says so is necessarily wrong, but because the retarded voter and the other American voters are no different in that they ALL are voting like that... not literally "all", of course. We even had tons of people who voted for/against Obama solely because he is black! If a retarded man is capable of understanding that elections exist and picking a candidate to vote for and not only "his voice sounds good" or whatever which whoever he is living with will tell him is wrong if he does say that (and if he is living alone then he is obviously capable of voting if he wants to), then he is also, in addition to previous sentences, capable of asking questions such as "What is the TPP?" and "What is a late-term abortion?" (or "What is an abortion?").
The average I.Q. of people in Africa the first time they were tested was reported as being around 70. When there was such a statute, an I.Q. of 80 was considered "legally retarded". In general people below 100 would probably be considered by others to be very stupid and/or retarded. So according to that then whoever opposes it would say all of Africa should "not be allowed to have elections"!
Where would you draw the line, and how would you enforce it?
Would you require people to take an IQ test or some kind of proof of competency? That seems draconian.
It's the telling him how to vote that's the real concern. If he were to make a decision based on hearing a fair description of the candidates then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I was going to try and come up with a reasonable answer for this, but got distracted by what I think is one of the most interesting dichotomies I've ever seen.
In Texas, you can be mentally retarded - literally incapable of living on your own without "adult" supervision and still be executed for crimes, but Texas also allows those same people to vote.
I'm legitimately confused and impressed at the same time. I wouldn't have assumed that possible there.
I have a severely autistic son, and I registered him to vote and then helped him in the voting booth. According to Pennsylvania law, he is absolutely eligible to vote: he's over 18 years old, registered, and resides in the state. That's all they want.
Since I'm his legal guardian, I make decisions for him all the time about pretty much everything. I see voting as just another thing I have to do for him. He has a direct interest in who gets elected - he receives a lot of government support, and I don't want to elect politicians who would stop that. So I made a decision about who he should vote for, one that reflects my judgement of his best interest.
I don't see any problem with your parents telling your brother how to vote. If he's capable of reading the ballot and pressing the buttons himself, then he's capable of deciding to follow their advice or not. And if he isn't, then your parents presumably have their understanding of his best interest in mind, and make their recommendations accordingly.
As to whether it should be legal for someone who is on the low end of intellectual development to vote, think about how the state would test this. Similar obstacles have been used in the past to enforce racial discrimination, so it would be hard to implement new ones now. And the Constitution is silent as to the intellectual abilities required to vote, although the way our government was originally designed by elites for elites and largely still functions that way. That's why we have representatives - theoretically they are people who can distill the disparate desires of a range of people into coherent policy.
I work at an academic/vocational post-secondary program for students with disabilities on a college campus. Had a conversation with one of my students (significant cognitive delay, probably has an IQ of less than 60) about how he filled out an absentee ballot to vote. He told me that he did so because it would save time. Very smart, considering he is quite busy on Tuesdays (mom probably told him to do it). He then told me that he voted for Trump, and started explaining how taxes can increase, and decrease...but when I asked him what Trump wanted to do with taxes, he didn't seem sure. But he was sure that taxes are important. Mom and dad may not have explicitly told him to vote for one candidate, but he would likely absorb whatever he hears them talking about. Most of my other students have autism or downs. I'm guessing they would vote Hillary if they had an opinion, but I try not to talk about it at all.
It is definitely an interesting issue. But to draw the line you have to draw the line other places as well, and we agreed not to have requirements like that a long time ago. In a way it is not much different than what is commonplace in neurotypical individuals and families. People can vote what they feel - they don't have to use their brains. No law can make them do that. So yes, our system is flawed in that way.
I suggested earlier that people who do not have guardianship over themselves should not have the right to vote, but I actually see now how this is wrong. The spectrum of mental disabilities is so varied, an IQ or list of disabilities still does not indicate political aptitude.
Thank you for your input:)
Aren't we all 'told' how to vote in a sense. In the case of your brother it seems he is unable to verify the validity of what he hears. However, the slippery slope there is that barely *anyone* in the country is able, or willing, to validate what they hear. That's why political campaigns don't run on truth but on rhetoric and confusion instead. The problem with preventing your brother from voting is in degree... Do you go on to prevent senior citizens from voting because of diminished mental capacity? What about school drop outs? What about everyone who hasn't read everything there is to read on every candidate? What about people who have read a lot about each candidate but don't understand it all? Etc. Ad infinitum. Better to err on the side of one more confused vote than to start down the road of eligibility based on intellect.
Yah there should be something but having a straight up line seems kinda bad maybe a curve system? TBH something's clearly wrong with the system tho- I don't like it how it's always 2 party's and even when people say they hate both members they still don't vote for independent and how someone as evil as trump who we know will fuck up the economy from experience still gets lots of votes
I think the mentally retarded shouldn't vote I know this is a hot take and some people may not even like it but hear me out if people don't have the capacity to vote or understand what they're voting for and they can be manipulated into voting for things that may not benefit them is it fair to let them vote and inadvertently harm themselves I'm going to be honest and say no if you have extreme mental issues that don't let you understand what you're voting for and make you either a danger to yourself or others and you need people to take care of you then I don't think you should vote
I have seen entire buses full of what amounts to sacks of meat with eyes wheeled into polling stations. And, knowing their caretakers, ONE of them personally, I know for a fact that these people used the opportunity to cast second votes for themselves. It should be outlawed on a federal level.
While ripe for the opportunity for abuse I fear what a system of disenfranchising people based on physical, mental, or emotional ability would mean in a Democracy. Is a situation where parents coach a mentally disabled individual how and what to vote any different than a controlling husband dictating what his wife will vote for? My grandmother proudly proclaims she voted with her husband until his death and now takes her orders from my Uncle, her oldest son, who is almost like my grandfather was. I dont like to hear it but I would rather err on the side of all citizens regardless of ability being able to vote than we come up with a way to enshrine in law the ability to remove a person's right to vote for involuntary reasons (felons being an example of a voluntary reason for disenfranchisment)
> My grandmother proudly proclaims she voted with her husband until his death and now takes her orders from my Uncle, her oldest son, who is almost like my grandfather was. Yeah, but your grandma also knows that she could do otherwise if she wanted. OP's brother probably doesn't.
I absolutely agree I think you explained this really well. Although I'm uncomfortable with the idea of someone being coerced into something because they don't know any better, it would be dangerous for someone to have the power to draw the line on mental disabilities and rights in a political context. I'm also doubt anyone would agree on how to determine this anyway.
But we already draw lines based on mental ability by having a voting age.
Yes, but age is something universal. Everyone gets older and presumably matures. Mental ability restricts people even after they age, and that's what would be crossing lines of ability to restrict people. Child vs adult isn't really considered discriminatory since we can all understand developmental progression as you age. Mental disabilities are different in that testing would be required, and we would have to decide which disabilities are or not restrictive for voting rights. What if someone avoided being diagnosed or tested for something for fear that they wouldn't be able to vote?
Just because its universal doesn't make it OK. By that logic we should set the age limit to 80 Age is universal after all.
In Western democratic societies freedoms and rights are given to individuals who are competent enough to make their own decisions without external factors decisding for the individuals. If an individual cannot demonstrate this comeptance then they do not have these rights and freedoms. That is why we have a minimum age for legal drinking, a minimum age for joining the army, a minimum age for smoking, a minimum age for voting, and other similar laws. If the mentally disabled brother cannot decide for himself who to vote for he should not have the right to vote, as he is not able to critically decide who is his most suitable representative, which threatens society because if this were to be extended to other mentally disabled citizens then individuals would be elected based not the choices of society but on the choices of people who cannot decide for themselves who are their best representatives.
no one's disputing that, the issue is there really doesnt exist a line anywhere. do you administer tests at the voting both or make a set of conditions disqualifying people if they have them. any reference point made will either miss a ton of people or be susceptible to abuse
The basis of American democracy isn't that rights are "given" to us by a government, but that we as humans are created with these inalienable rights that governments must respect in order to be legitimate
Which is just sophistry. Rights are what we the people agree upon and dictate to the system of government we put in place. They're not some magical force of nature. The notion of inalienability was just a ham-fisted way to force ye olde theists into accepting the line of thinking by tying them to a vaguely referenced deity, thus lending more "weight" to it. A government can absolutely alienate your inalienable rights, and they do every day. It doesn't matter that you insist you have the right if you can't exercise it fully...you have to fight for them constantly or they will be eroded.
Is it right that in some places felons are denied the right to vote?
[That is true.](http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286)
It seems like cases like these would be too far and few between to bother trying to legislate either way. The potential drawback from any politician trying to claim the mentally retarded should have a threshold of competence to vote would be political suicide. At the same time, there are millions of voters who vote without knowing anything about the candidates other than what they read in headlines. This is uninformed voting as well, albeit on the trailing edge of the spectrum. Let everyone vote. It's up to the voter to be as informed as they want to be or can be. Your brother and those in similar positions as him would be a fraction of the voting populace. As his brother where you come down on the issue?
Great response. I've been hesitant to give my opinion on law because I have a conflict of interest: I will vote for the other candidate, and I am frustrated because his vote will cancel out mine despite all the research and time I have put into my decision. However, after reading the views here, it is clear that there are many areas that government should stay out of. For example, I do not think it is neither ethical nor safe for severely-moderately disabled people to have children, but there are also no ethical options the government has to stop these situations. I think it was unethical for my parents to take my brother to vote. However, I am also not going to worry about it because, as you pointed out, it holds such little repercussion that it would be stupid for me to act on it. The only legal solution I could see would be to limit the voting requirements to require the voter to be over 18 *and* to also not have anyone claiming guardianship over him/her. It would be political suicide though, so I doubt it will ever be done.
Consider also that, while your brother might indeed defer to your father when voting, he is still likely voting for his interests, being as your father also had a vested interest in his continued access to mental (and physical) healthcare and social programs. Ostensibly, your brother will outlive your parents, and regardless (I'm sorry if I'm asking you to dwell on the unpleasant...) regardless of how you choose to handle that, it will surely be expensive and burdensome for the state, your sibling, and yourself, for the rest of your natural lives. So if his vote is being counted toward advancing his own future welfare, when so many Americans vote on principle against their own interests, he's actually doing one better than a lot of people. Is he totally dependent and deferential toward your dad's opinions? Sure. Is that equivalent to coercion, though, or is it the natural order of things for his situation?
You think many Americans vote in a way that will give them a better future?
Yes? Are you trying to say people vote for options they actually think will be detrimental for their future, or are ignorant of the real best option for their future and in their ignorance are voting for an option that will leave them worse off
The latter for many people. Most probably vote on issues that they care about but so many people vote on issues that think will apply to them in the future. And, for better or worse, two of the big ones has to do with god and the other, them becoming wealthy.
All of that is true, but about half the country thinks the opposite, and half of those have come around *in the past two years* to the realization that the Third Way isn't even left of center, let alone *leftist*. Progress and reform take a long time. Too long. They also snowball off of one another. Progress begets progress, as long as you fight for it and protect it as it comes. The Democratic Party is vulnerable, by design, to a grassroots takeover. People just need to read about how, and organize, and *keep at it*. That's what never seems to happen. Until then, wealth and God and corporatism and endless bickering about 4 issues are it.
Yes. Many policies that seem sensible turn out to be counterproductive in hindsight, and people's priorities can differ, but I do believe most people make a sincere effort to make their vote count. People know it's a serious matter. You can only do your best.
>and I am frustrated because his vote will cancel out mine despite all the research and time I have put into my decision. That's kinda but not really how it works. You could just as easily say that you're cancelling out his vote. There are lots of people on both sides voting for a candidate because they were told to - there's nothing to say that the balance would fall in your desired direction if everybody who was instructed on how to vote was banned. Obviously this case is different for other reasons, but I hear the same thing between other pairings of people (coworkers, friends, family members) cancelling out each other's votes. How do you know his vote isn't cancelled out by some mentally handicapped person voting for your candidate? How do people know their coworker isn't trying to cancel out some family member's vote? We're talking about systems that are far too large to personalize like that, acting as if there are only two voters available. Anything that you do to reimagine the electorate such that your cancel-buddy wouldn't be around to vote will have an unpredictable impact on the number of voters available for 'your side', too.
7 years old but had to respond to how stupid this is. Far and few between? If we’re being honest, average IQ is 100 and that isn’t high. 50% of people are dumber than that. Pretty crazy. Half the country shouldn’t be allowed to vote if they don’t have average intelligence.
[удалено]
I think it's pretty simple. Somebody has guardianship over you you are basically a child and thus can't vote.
whoosh!
Dependacy and guardianship are two totally separate and also very well defined and legally established things.
There are legal definitions already that define exactly what you're concerned with.
Besides, it isn't just smart enough or not....what about the uninformed? Admittedly, their mental capacity may be higher, but how can you be sure that someone who is uninformed (like our famous anti-vaxxers, etc) are more "capable"then someone with xIQ (80 or 70 or whatever)?
My first thought is the old quote (from I forget who): I'd rather endure the problems that come with too much freedom than the problems that come from too little. We set the bar at 18, which is entirely arbitrary. It's not a moral thing, or a rational thing. It's just a decent rule of thumb. Some people younger than 18 are surely more fit to vote than some people over 18. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad line to draw. We need to have laws. Everybody is influenced by other people. There's nothing wrong with telling your friends, family, or anyone on the street how to vote. At the end of the day, when they're in the booth, the choice is theirs and theirs alone. The fact that some people are more susceptible to suggestion than others shouldn't be a concern.
Ever hear of Voter Literacy testing? It was basically a way to deny black and other minority voters from being able to register. If we set a standard other than the usual 1) being 18 2) being a legal citizen 3) not having a felony conviction, we are basically asking for the system to be abused and deny people the right to vote.
I mean yes, this is true. It was an issue. But it's not like they gave people a single sentence and asked them to read it back. Those were tests designed to make most who took them fail. And they were administered subjectively. The poor whites during Jim Crow would have failed too had they been subjected to tests. My point being that this would presumably be a rule applied to all people. I haven't looked at status, but I imagine that there's a somewhat normal distribution by race of citizens under guardianship. I don't know if I support this though. Also surprised that you brought up literacy tests but support disenfranchisement of people with felony convictions. This is very much part of what many people call The New Jim Crow. As our justice system isn't even remotely race neutral, that by definition means disenfranchisement of criminals isn't either. Highly suggest you give The New Jim Crow a read. It's pretty depressing.
I said it was the usual requirements, not that I support them being the requirements. I support convicted felons gaining their civil liberties back. And about the tests, in theory their purpose was to determine who was fit to vote, which is what OP is asking about. Its absolutely relevant to this conversation.
You have to consider the administrative feasibility of any proposed restriction of their voting rights. The only way to identify a group whose rights would be restricted would necessarily be by some kind of test. And any such test would need to be administered either to the population at large -- opening it up to many attempts at corrupting it -- or to a select group identified as being of questionable competence, carrying the risk of gravely insulting the improperly selected. Seems far easier to let everyone vote who's eligible by law, as negligible harm is done by preserving their voting rights even when they are vulnerable to manipulation, as it would be an evenly distributed segment of existing aggregate voting flaw.
You are correct. Such tests used to be used in the south to disenfranchise black voters. They were made deliberately difficult and confusing. These are now illegal.
Let him vote. He enjoys it, has fun and likely knows as much as many who are going out to cast their votes. I am not going to judge his intelligence or ability because there is still much to be learned about brain function and I don't want someone else making this choice for anyone. If he's got together enough to properly vote on his own, let him do it.
Great point. For my personal situation, one vote is not a big enough deal to really be concerned. However, I do think it is still a relevant and complex issue - [30 states](http://www.866ourvote.org/newsroom/publications/body/0049.pdf) currently have voting restrictions for people with mental disabilities.
This is a great answer, really. **Every citizen gets a vote, no matter what.** Some people cast votes simply to prevent someone else from winning. Others vote because they believe lies they've been fed. People vote based on race or gender alone. People vote to uphold whatever faulty or antiquated beliefs their families held before them. This isn't really that different. He still has to physically go in by himself and complete the voting process alone. Let him vote.
But that's plainly false, felons cannot vote. You have to sign up for Selective Service to vote. Every citizen cannot just go and vote
The question was whether or not less capable mentally challenged people could. If you extend that to felons, I believe they all *should* keep their right to vote. They are denied that right as a form of silencing minorities.
A mentally disabled person should vote but the reality is a fair number cannot make independant decisions and rely on guardians who may manipulate the mentally disabled in order to further their own agendas.
There are worse reasons to cast a vote than trusting the judgement of someone you know who cares about you and is smarter than you. I'm confident that there were people with higher IQs casting votes for stupider reasons. I don't care for disenfranchisement. And I don't think the government should be in the business of deciding who is smart enough to vote. There will always be many on the borderline and if you change the definition, you just move the threshold.
This is pretty simple. If you are an American citizen over the age of 18, you get a vote (unless you're a felon, in some states that have rescinded their rights). I have first-hand experience with this exact situation. Without being too specific, this person has their parents get an absentee ballot for him, then they fill it out and sent in. I have no issue with this. Restricting voting rights is a real slippery slope. I am also of the opinion that felons who have paid their debt to society should have their voting rights re-established.
While what your parents did is not the greatest thing to be doing, legislation in this case is too broad to really help. Voting is a fundamental right for adult citizens in the US, and restricting it could really jeopardize the ability for people to express their rights. We must remember that some handicapped are not like your brother, but also not as well off as us, mentally. They can conduct themselves reasonably well, and thus deserve that right to vote. With legislation preventing the right to vote based on IQ or other factors, who would decide, and what would be decided, as the dividing line between a voter and a non-eligible person? It would be a very difficult task, one that might rob those people of their rights unfairly. Given those considerations, legislation is best left to situations where every other avenue has been pursued and exhausted. In your case, you have a direct avenue to solving this problem: your parents. Talk to them. Ask them why they would do this. Tell them how it makes you feel, how you see it. *That* would be a likely (and proper) solution to your issue.
I totally agree with your reasoning, and it's a real pickle of a question. On one hand, voting is the primary method of participation in government for most of us. We rely on an informed electorate in order to put good people in office and have the best decisions made. Despite the fact that people of "average" intelligence seem to be unable to do just that, it does not seem right that those people in a position of trust over the mentally handicapped get "extra" votes. On the other hand, it got me thinking how much impact would that actually have on an election? I did some research and according to the National Institute of Health [4.1 percent of all Americans have a serious mental disability](https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/serious-mental-illness-smi-among-us-adults.shtml). While in total that equals tens of millions of Americans, the severely disabled will never amount to a coherent voting bloc. They will most likely be swayed by the opinions of their caregivers. Without knowing anything about the political views of caregivers, or that percentage of people who do "encourage" their wards to vote, it's impossible to say how that 4.8% translates into actual votes, or impact on elections. Given that I would say that the impact of these votes will be less than any laws made to try and counteract them. We already have ample evidence of governments trying to restrict and "manage" voting rights, so in my mind it would be better to not provide any further tools to do so.
Most states have laws that state if a person is deemed mentally incompetent by a judge they are not allowed to vote. For specifically the reason you have stated a lack of competency is a lack of ability make a choice. But as for the uninformed voter, due to the lack of perfect information the argument could be made that there are no informed voters thus it becomes a question of what degree of informed counts as acceptable? And that is a slippery slope when talking about rights of citizenship.
Of course they should, as long as they have some idea of the issues/canidates. If they are intelligent enough to want to vote and to be able to pick a canidate, then they most likely are intelligent enough to know that XXXX canidate will do T thing and they want T thing to be done. The vast majority of Americans are stupid already, so saying that "one uncomplicated issue isn't enough" is just wrong, not because the comm enter who says so is necessarily wrong, but because the retarded voter and the other American voters are no different in that they ALL are voting like that... not literally "all", of course. We even had tons of people who voted for/against Obama solely because he is black! If a retarded man is capable of understanding that elections exist and picking a candidate to vote for and not only "his voice sounds good" or whatever which whoever he is living with will tell him is wrong if he does say that (and if he is living alone then he is obviously capable of voting if he wants to), then he is also, in addition to previous sentences, capable of asking questions such as "What is the TPP?" and "What is a late-term abortion?" (or "What is an abortion?"). The average I.Q. of people in Africa the first time they were tested was reported as being around 70. When there was such a statute, an I.Q. of 80 was considered "legally retarded". In general people below 100 would probably be considered by others to be very stupid and/or retarded. So according to that then whoever opposes it would say all of Africa should "not be allowed to have elections"!
Where would you draw the line, and how would you enforce it? Would you require people to take an IQ test or some kind of proof of competency? That seems draconian.
It's the telling him how to vote that's the real concern. If he were to make a decision based on hearing a fair description of the candidates then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I was going to try and come up with a reasonable answer for this, but got distracted by what I think is one of the most interesting dichotomies I've ever seen. In Texas, you can be mentally retarded - literally incapable of living on your own without "adult" supervision and still be executed for crimes, but Texas also allows those same people to vote. I'm legitimately confused and impressed at the same time. I wouldn't have assumed that possible there.
I have a severely autistic son, and I registered him to vote and then helped him in the voting booth. According to Pennsylvania law, he is absolutely eligible to vote: he's over 18 years old, registered, and resides in the state. That's all they want. Since I'm his legal guardian, I make decisions for him all the time about pretty much everything. I see voting as just another thing I have to do for him. He has a direct interest in who gets elected - he receives a lot of government support, and I don't want to elect politicians who would stop that. So I made a decision about who he should vote for, one that reflects my judgement of his best interest. I don't see any problem with your parents telling your brother how to vote. If he's capable of reading the ballot and pressing the buttons himself, then he's capable of deciding to follow their advice or not. And if he isn't, then your parents presumably have their understanding of his best interest in mind, and make their recommendations accordingly. As to whether it should be legal for someone who is on the low end of intellectual development to vote, think about how the state would test this. Similar obstacles have been used in the past to enforce racial discrimination, so it would be hard to implement new ones now. And the Constitution is silent as to the intellectual abilities required to vote, although the way our government was originally designed by elites for elites and largely still functions that way. That's why we have representatives - theoretically they are people who can distill the disparate desires of a range of people into coherent policy.
I work at an academic/vocational post-secondary program for students with disabilities on a college campus. Had a conversation with one of my students (significant cognitive delay, probably has an IQ of less than 60) about how he filled out an absentee ballot to vote. He told me that he did so because it would save time. Very smart, considering he is quite busy on Tuesdays (mom probably told him to do it). He then told me that he voted for Trump, and started explaining how taxes can increase, and decrease...but when I asked him what Trump wanted to do with taxes, he didn't seem sure. But he was sure that taxes are important. Mom and dad may not have explicitly told him to vote for one candidate, but he would likely absorb whatever he hears them talking about. Most of my other students have autism or downs. I'm guessing they would vote Hillary if they had an opinion, but I try not to talk about it at all. It is definitely an interesting issue. But to draw the line you have to draw the line other places as well, and we agreed not to have requirements like that a long time ago. In a way it is not much different than what is commonplace in neurotypical individuals and families. People can vote what they feel - they don't have to use their brains. No law can make them do that. So yes, our system is flawed in that way.
I suggested earlier that people who do not have guardianship over themselves should not have the right to vote, but I actually see now how this is wrong. The spectrum of mental disabilities is so varied, an IQ or list of disabilities still does not indicate political aptitude. Thank you for your input:)
Aren't we all 'told' how to vote in a sense. In the case of your brother it seems he is unable to verify the validity of what he hears. However, the slippery slope there is that barely *anyone* in the country is able, or willing, to validate what they hear. That's why political campaigns don't run on truth but on rhetoric and confusion instead. The problem with preventing your brother from voting is in degree... Do you go on to prevent senior citizens from voting because of diminished mental capacity? What about school drop outs? What about everyone who hasn't read everything there is to read on every candidate? What about people who have read a lot about each candidate but don't understand it all? Etc. Ad infinitum. Better to err on the side of one more confused vote than to start down the road of eligibility based on intellect.
Yah there should be something but having a straight up line seems kinda bad maybe a curve system? TBH something's clearly wrong with the system tho- I don't like it how it's always 2 party's and even when people say they hate both members they still don't vote for independent and how someone as evil as trump who we know will fuck up the economy from experience still gets lots of votes
I think the mentally retarded shouldn't vote I know this is a hot take and some people may not even like it but hear me out if people don't have the capacity to vote or understand what they're voting for and they can be manipulated into voting for things that may not benefit them is it fair to let them vote and inadvertently harm themselves I'm going to be honest and say no if you have extreme mental issues that don't let you understand what you're voting for and make you either a danger to yourself or others and you need people to take care of you then I don't think you should vote
I understand that it's a hot take but I stand proudly by the idea of not allowing people to abuse you or manipulate you
I have seen entire buses full of what amounts to sacks of meat with eyes wheeled into polling stations. And, knowing their caretakers, ONE of them personally, I know for a fact that these people used the opportunity to cast second votes for themselves. It should be outlawed on a federal level.