Electoral Eugenics

Find Prometheus on Facebook Support Prometheus
The Case for Electoral Eugenics: Why Stupid People Should Not Have the Right to Vote

Electoral Eugenics

By Marty Beckerman

"By the people, for the people.”

 

Cute theory, right? Your opinion matters! You get a voice! It would be so perfect, if only it weren’t for… well… people. Specifically: stupid people, who comprise a significant chunk of the human race. But don’t tell this to extremists on one side who demand suffrage for toddlers with precocious criminal records, or extremists on the other side who want to nuke the Middle East into representational government. Don’t tell it to anyone, for that matter, because too many members of our society are under the sick delusion that they know something about anything.

 

Nobody is willing to say what every condescending, know-it-all snob… uh… knows. Nobody is willing to proclaim that Neanderthal d-bags should not have the power to affect global events to any degree whatsoever. Nobody is willing to suggest that the U.S. government institute a basic I.Q. test for anyone who desires the right to vote.

 

Don’t get me wrong: this isn’t about regressing to the disgusting policies of Jim Crow, which granted voting rights to illiterate whites but not illiterate blacks; it’s about progressing to Jim Know. The twentieth century saw electoral emancipation for millions of Americans—women, racial minorities, and eighteen-year-olds—which was only fair. Our history of discrimination is horrendous and sickening; if stupid white men can vote, why shouldn’t stupid people of every other classification? Foolishness doesn’t have a gender or ethnicity, and it doesn’t have a single ideology—there are plenty of imbeciles on both sides of the fence—but it is omnipresent: one in five Americans believes that the sun revolves around the earth, and half of us (including three-fourths of Republicans) disbelieve the evidence for evolution. Just look at online message boards, which have empowered countless raving lunatics to share their opinions with the world. (For proof, see the frothing-at-the-mouth reactions that this piece will inevitably provoke below. Thanks, loyal readers!)

 

Whereas once upon a time unhinged/paranoid/vitriolic psychos were confined to the Letters to the Editor section of the local newspaper, and perhaps Xeroxed pamphlets with print runs of four copies, now these crazy asses have a forum to vent their labyrinthine conspiracy theories for millions of readers. They are unable to perceive shades of gray; right-wingers only see socialists and communists in their opponents, not moderate Democrats who cherish the Bill of Rights and the American Dream; conversely left-wingers only see racists and warmongers in their opponents, but this is woefully shortsighted because many Republicans also hate poor people, gay people, college-educated people, etc.

 

The Internet has given a voice to the 99 percent of those who don’t deserve one, and if you honestly—after reading any political message board for five minutes—suggest that universal suffrage is a good thing, then God help you. We are collectively crazed with paranoid anger; the blogosphere proves that we need to inject Zoloft, tranquilizers and antipsychotic medications into our water supply, not populism into our politics.

 

Listen, I’m not criticizing democracy, which you most likely consider either treasonous or discriminatory, depending on your worldview; I’m criticizing dumbocracy (shameless plug: the title of my new book), which undermines the real thing and threatens our shared values of freedom and equality. Citizens should have the right to vote, assuming that they can prove that they’re not complete dumbasses. But Joe Blow often has no idea what he’s talking about, even if he has common sense and the wisdom of crowds. Why shouldn’t skilled, experienced specialists have more pull in their fields of expertise than stubborn, cantankerous mutants who simply inherited their inflexible lifelong opinions from the previous generation of stubborn, cantankerous mutants?

 

Nobody wants an authoritarian, out-of-touch technocracy, excluding disciples of B.F. Skinner and possibly the customer service representatives at my wireless provider. We have the collective right to select our leaders, which is certainly preferable to our leaders selecting themselves. Our brave troops have died, generation after generation, to protect the ideal of self-government. But certain people are excluded from the voter rolls: criminals, children and corpses. If we make these exemptions, why not exempt the criminally childish and brain dead?

 

The Voting License Quiz will be relatively simple and nonpartisan. We don’t want to disenfranchise people over their opinions, which would reek of autocracy. Sure, 99 percent of Republican voters will be eliminated instantaneously, but so will 99 percent of wheatgrass-guzzling, civilization-loathing, PETA dues-paying fruitcakes. Either way, if you can’t answer basic civics questions (“The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees _________”) and logic questions (“If Barack Obama has a crazy Christian pastor all over the airwaves, does this make the senator a Muslim?”), then you’re shit out of luck, buddy; you’re too much of a goddamned imbecile to endanger our country—and our planet—with your hysterical fantasies and impulsive wrath.

 

There are evil geniuses and goodhearted simpletons, so perhaps my modestly proposed filter would be imperfect. However, we must take a driving test if we wish to legally drive. Nobody has a problem with this. Are automobiles really less dangerous than irrational minds?

 

Think about it.

 

(If you can.)

 

Marty Beckerman is the author of Dumbocracy: Adventures with the Loony Left, the Rabid Right and Other American Idiots (The Disinformation Company, September 2008). His website is www.MartyBeckerman.com

Trackback(0)
Comments (7)add comment

Nathan said:

0
...
I'm under the impression that stupid people have an equal right to self governance with respect to educated people. Being ignorant to the articles of the Constitution, for example, does not make you unworthy of voting privaleges in my opinion.

I do find your argument based on convicts and children interesting however. I don't think we restrict the suffrage of felons because they are "criminally childish and brain dead". My understanding is that felons are denied voting rights because they chose to break the social contract. Violating your respoinsibilites entails a loss of priveleges. This is in contrast to being stupid, uneducated, ignorant, naive, etc which does not stipulate disenfranchisement.

On the other hand, I think you are correct with the child argument. Children are not allowed to vote, at least to my understanding, because they are theoretically incapable of making an informed decision. I find that interesting because as you're suggesting that logic could be extrapolated to include the stupid, ignorant, naieve, etc.

I'm curious though, at what point would your theory evolve again to preclude the non college educated or the non cultured and the like to be stripped of voting priveleges?
 
June 25, 2008
Votes: +3

Shin said:

0
...
Friedrich Hayek made a similar interesting proposal in the 1970s: The right to vote should be denied to all those who are net recipients of transfer payments from the government. This would prevent an abuse of the system by politicians who promise everyone more money from the government in case they get elected - which is basically what most politicians do.
 
June 25, 2008
Votes: +1

Bill said:

0
...
I wholeheartedly agree. The fact remains that disagreement is unavoidable and, when conducted maturely, beneficial, as it results in both sides reaching an understanding of the other position. This understanding is essential in order to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

Unfortunately, the zealots on both sides of the aisle are so short-sighted they simply cannot listen to any opinion other than those which coincide with their own. This is simply not the way that people should behave. I sincerely believe that were voting restricted to those who can successfully pass an IQ test or psychological assessment, the American people would see not only a difference in how politicians presented themselves but also a different crop of people pursuing the office altogether.
 
June 27, 2008
Votes: +0

Paul Mall said:

0
...
It's a little idealistic. If we start denying people voting rights, with everyone becoming less and less private, then the system could be abused to deny it to people who SHOULD be able to vote but are a threat/minority/etc. It's just one of those things with the system that we had could get you screwed over, not to mention mistaken identities.
 
July 04, 2008 | url
Votes: +0

Kelly said:

0
...
Who would decide exactly how smart you have to be to vote? Who would decide what tool is used to gauge that intelligence? Who would do test administration and the grading? If morons are the deciders, you and I might be the first ones weeded out! Sorry dude, I just can't for IQ-based suffrage. It's too slippery a slope.
 
September 02, 2008
Votes: +0

Robert said:

0
...
I understand it, and it would be hard to keep it from being a slippery slope. I think it would be a good idea if it was done correctly. Just as people who want to become citizens, which affords the right to vote, have to take a test to become citizens. Then a voting test would be a similar test, with some current event questions.

It would be extremely difficult to come up with questions that could not be criticized as being partisan.

This wouldn't be a test of intelligence. It would be a test of basic knowledge of how our government works. Which most kids should have learned in elementary school, so it's not asking for something extreme. Also basic policy questions about different candidates positions would be good, but once again come into conflict with being criticized as being partisan.
 
October 17, 2008
Votes: +0

Nike Air Max said:

0
...
It would be a test of basic knowledge of how our government works. Which most kids should have learned in elementary school, so it's not asking for something extreme. Also basic policy questions about different candidates positions would be good, but once again come into conflict with being criticized as being partisan.
 
November 16, 2011 | url
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy