ANSWERS: 55
  • I don't think IQ has anything to do with voting. How many people actually can say they make an educated decision? For the most part the only thing we know about canidates is what is said on TV. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know they are all full of crap and will say whatever they have too just to get elected. We as a country have little control over anything, vote or no vote.
  • No. (Firstly, I find the whole concept of IQ very dodgy indeed, but presumably you don't so I will leave that point.) The point of voting is not to run the country, but to find out what people want. The people who they vote for need to be moderately (not very) intelligent - but I am prepared to let the voters judge that. When they have decided what the people want, they can then pay intelligent people to do it.
  • What good would that do? I am sure Bush and his father even have IQ's above 100 (barely at least) and they both voted for themselves!
  • IQ has nothing to do with intelligence. If you know how to do the tests then you will get a good score. You can improve your IQ simply by reading "How to do IQ tests" books. Common sense, however, is more difficult to learn, and would be far more appropriate when using your vote.
  • they should take off the age limit and make you have to have the brains to vote
  • They should be able to understand enough about politics and learn about WHO and what they are voting for.
  • Should we take away the right to vote simply because someone is bad at taking standardized tests? As one who sucks at test-taking, I think not! There are a great many people who WISH I wouldn't vote, but that's another debate altogether! ;) Seriously, though, people will IQs below 100 are often still able to read about politics and decide what sounds best to them, so their voices deserve to be heard.
  • now what do you say......shall i vote for your question or not???
  • no, but I think they should have to pass a test to be on a jury, in order to show that they can understand scientific evidence and logic.
  • (Prepares herself for slamming as she voices her OPINION) If the President doesn't have to, why should we? The voice of reason is on temporary assignment.......
  • yea about that what is the average IQ?
  • No. I don't think any highly intelligent being would waste their time on something as trivial as voting anyway. I mean someone who tests well.
  • Not if they are voting for my candidate. :)
  • Since they say average IQ is 90-110, I think a lot of people would have their rights taken away from them. Also the ability to do puzzles does not make a person more intelligent just shows the mind works in a particular way. and shows potential. Most people never reach the potential that an incredibly high IQ may indicate they could. The ability to be down to earth and sensible enough to vote does not require a high IQ
  • i thought you'd never ask! "it's not the right time to be sober, 'cause now the idiots have taken over. spreading like a social cancer, is there an answer? MENSA membership receeding. tell me why and how are all these stupid people breeding?"
  • I have known and worked with some people over the years who have VERY high IQs. I'm not sure any of them should be allowed to vote either. I have noticed that the majority of people with way above average IQs that I knew were libertarians. Therefore, they were (in effect) not voting. Maybe that is nature's way of weeding out the outliers?
  • No - Some people who would have a high IQ but are terrible at testing would be left out. But I agree with the idea, I'd like to see a certain standard for being able to vote.
  • Without a doubt.
  • Everybody should be allowed to work, period.
  • No, because even people with IQ's below 100 can do amazing things. We cannot survive divided.
  • IQs mean very little. They are an American concept - and hence, have little to do with knowledge of international geography.
  • Not only to vote, to run for election, they should have at least near genius IQs.
  • 100 is only average. This reminds me of the book Animal Farm http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/index.html Four legs good. Two legs better.
  • Only if the canidates are required to have an IQ above 90 and can pass a lie detector test on honesty.
  • no, it should be asked, 'should politicians be required to have an IQ above 100', don't you think!
  • thats complicated, cause i do think that people should be informed about who and what they are voting for but an IQ test is hardly the way to go about it... but even if there were classes (like learning to drive classes) that would be complicated cause who would be teaching and what would be taught? everyone has their bias. i just wish people really understood and sought out information besides FOX, NBC, CBS or whatever the hell else is out there in the mainstream. they should be forced to check out indymedia!
  • I don't know about that, but there should be some kind of standard. Its madness that there are more regulations surrounding who has the right to operate a motor vehicle than there are to pick the leader of a country. As history has proved, when any Joe-six-pack can go out and make some half-assed, ill-informed decision based on what information he received from Fox news or some propaganda distributed at the last NASCAR function, only insanity can follow. Of course, when elections are stolen then I guess it doesn't really matter, does it?
  • No...since all IQ is a ratio of your "mental age" over your "physical age", someone who's IQ is 100 has an exact match between the two. If you restrict voting to those with an IQ over 100, then you'd only let "above average" people have a say. If you were really going to restrict voting based on IQ, it would be more realistic to prohibit those who have very low IQ's, along the lines of the gauge used when sentencing criminals who are severely retarded and are then deemed no to have the wherewithal to understand the consequences of their actions.
  • I.Q. has nothing to do with intelligence.There have been many successful entrepreneurs, millionaires, and billionaires, who never graduated high school, yet they create many jobs and employ many people who hold multiple degrees. I know of a few highly Educated folks who couldn't pour piss from a boot with the directions written clearly on the heel.
  • Yes. BU**SH** never would have been elected....
  • Maybe not the IQ thing but they should work and pay taxes, and pass a literacy test. No work, no vote. This of course does not include retiree's, those laid off etc. The welfare community sways to many elections looking for more hand outs. And politicians will give them to them.
  • Better there should be a sanity test. Oh wait. Groucho Marx revealed that there ain't no Sanity Clause.
  • I believe that someone should be reasonably intelligent to be able to vote. In example : being able to function on your own, read, etc. The mentally disabled can vote, it's their right. However, I just don't think that that is right.
  • No, because there is a possibility that the person cheated on the test.
  • It's a human right to be able to vote for those in your government, no matter what your IQ. They did away with passing tests for being able to vote in the US in 1965 with the voting rights act. Before that, people would give African Americans impossible questions that if they couldn't answer, they wouldn't be able to vote. Not that I'm saying people would do that now!
  • The President's IQ is way less then 100 infact his is a -100 so I don't see why a person needs to have an IQ of over 100 to vote for someone who has less.
  • That's not the essence of democracy. The point of democracy is that everyone has a say in how the state should be run.
  • No way. Our country consists of people half of whom are below average intelligence. The government represents both halves equally. However, perhaps people should be required to answer a few basic questions such as "Who is the current vice-president of the US?" and "Who was the last president who wasn't a Bush or a Clinton?" and "Name three candidates running for president?" and "Who told you who to vote for?" And if they tell you someone for the last question, or have no clue about the others, they haven't put enough effort into thinking about who to vote for, and shouldn't be allowed to vote. Without a basic knowledge of what they're doing, it's more a matter of who can con people into obeying orders better, and it shouldn't be about that at all.
  • i work with the developmentally disabled - they have rights just like you and me
  • Perhaps a general test on knowledge of political topics: 1.) What's the name of the current president? 2.) What's the name of the previous president? 3.) What countries are we currently at war against? 4.) Where is the capital of the United States? 5.) What nations share a border with the United States? ... anyone who can't answer questions that simplistic should not be allowed to vote. They would just be picking candidates at random anyway. If you have to pass a test to drive, why not to vote?
  • I dont know... who determines I.Q?
  • No because if that happens we'll never have a president of GWB's caliber ever again. monkeys would sue for sure! And further to that ,voters shouldn't have higher IQ's than the commander in chief! lol
  • People should be required to have an IQ above 100 before they are allowed to walk out of the front door in the mornings... those with IQs below 100 should be chained to their beds and have to drink out of beakers. Society would just be better that way, trust me.
  • I want to say yes, but I don't really believe in the validity of IQ scores.
  • I say yes they should vote. Lets have all the votes cast after the legal age. If you are an American, but your IQ is less than 100 I wouldnot strip you of your constitutional rights or duties? people with disabilities haveto work twice as hard at something another person finds easy in some cases. I think for that reason alone they are more than qualified, and entitled. Are some of our solders over there not entitled to vote? I am dyslexic, and I sit with a dictionary in my lap, and can 't tipe well yet. Who is going to tell me I shouldnot be able to vote, or step outside for Christ sake? Good Question!
  • No, I don't think so...but if we made college compulsory, with great financial incentives, I think we could solve the whole "voting while ignorant" problem.
  • THAT would be the ruin of them! They rely on those with an IQ less than 12!
  • Yes! Eliminate the ignorant and the unintelligent.
  • IQ really shouldn't have anything to do with voting. The voter who doesn't have a clue about the issues, should stay home. I am tried of people voting based on color, gender or if they think someone is "good looking". These people should educate themselve before declaring themself a VOTER!!
  • well, if one has to neither prove one's intelligence nor inform their legal guardian prior to killing an unborn child, then i suppose proving one's intellectual capacity in order to vote would be slightly ironic
  • Only when that becomes a requirement for the ones running for office :)
  • nah, it's a very easy process - you just put an 'X' under the name of ther peson you like the most.
  • does our current president have an IQ above 100?
  • That would eliminate 99% of the politicians..
  • While I don't think there should be just some random test, I DO THINK that there should be some sort of test involving the politicians and their standpoints. I think it's ridiculous (and you know it's true) that people will vote for Clinton JUST because she's a woman and Obama JUST because he's black. Not because they know anything about the actual politics.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy