Should only educated people with PhD's be able to vote?

Should only educated people with PhD's be able to vote?

What we need is a corporatist structure where people can only vote on policy in areas they are actually knowledgeable about and they organize in syndicates based on their area of work and what they know.

no. i'm in academia and 90% of all phd's are completely clueless about politics. also, a majority of phd's (or academia in general) are socialists.

it's a shitty idea, leaf

No, because knowledge and wisdom are two different things. You can have a PhD and still be brick stupid in unrelated areas.

Conflict of interest waiting to happen.

t. PhD in Elec. Engineering.

>PhD in Gender Studies
Yeah... what could go wrong?

All of politics is a conflict of interest, that's kind of the point, finding solutions to conflicts.

>no. i'm in academia and 90% of all phd's are completely clueless about politics
this has a lot of truth in it
people who dedicate their lives in a science field arent very likely to spend time thinking about politics but there are exceptions

Also:
> No, because knowledge and wisdom are two different things. You can have a PhD and still be brick stupid in unrelated areas.
Doesn't this basically prove my exact point? Hopefully removing at least some people from exercising power in certain areas in which they have no knowledge/expertise?

The difference between a PhD and a masters is one big research project.

Since I have a PhD, I would not mind this.
But frankly, a Bachelor in a non shit tier subject should already be enough...

People would just vote on programs to give themselves more grant funding.

As long as it's only STEM PhD

Some SJW with a PhD in diversity should not count by any means

Imagine if our ancestors decided it would be better to lock its societies' warriors and hunters in a thatch hut for ten years and teach them the theory of hunting and fighting. Then we open the door and send them out into the fields to hunt prey and send them off to fight battles. How effective would this be?

Yes only those who study hard in the Marxist facto... I mean in academy should vote.

this. most people do not realize how much sneaky bullshit is going on in academia. even in a supposedly non-corrupt country as norway, it's a disgrace.

educaion does not equal clear and unbiased mind.

Well that's why you have different syndicates or structures, like labor, different sciences, law, etc. They can't all vote gibs for themselves, they have to work things out like laws normally are worked out. The difference is that they know their areas well and can communicate with legislation to work out compromises better than people who have no fucking idea what they're talking about in certain domains and still have power over them.

PhD =/= knowledgeable on political matters. I do agree however that we should cull out the herd a little bit with some required tests that need to be passed before voting

No. Most of the PhDs I know are autistic to some degree, and usually lack any interest for politics

No. Most PhD people are leftists.

t. Conservatard PhD guy.

Street smart =/= PhD

>implying that isn't going to be abused worse than gerrymandering.

>only rich goys whom'st'd've paid $999999999 shekels to attend school shooting centers with idiot liberal professors and convoluted methods of teaching may decide the political future of our fair country

Fuck off, leaf

Don't ruin your kind for today with asking these questions please.

>how dare you compare my EXPERIENCES and my education?
> my PhD in Feminist dance therapy and sub major in 12th century poetry is equivalent to your (if not higher) than your mechatronic Masters degree
>what your doing is discrimination!


Shitstorm waiting to happen, but id pay to watch it desu

Hahahahahaha tell that to your advisor
t. Chemistry PhD

people with PhDs mainly interact with other PhDs.That severly skews your view of how dumb the average nigger is

Here comes that weekly "Mensa 2000 IQ" thread
Sage

This. This. A million times this.

A PhD gives you depth, not breadth. Breadth is what you need for policy. Furthermore, it excludes people that might be knowledgeable but have less formal training. A hotshot PhD with one year of experience can still be smoked by someone with a Bachelors degree who has 25. And your premise is nothing more than an appeal to authority, as if people with PhDs aren't also capable of making mistakes.

If autism determines voting qualification...most of Sup Forums is ineligible...

not sure how it could if it was set up right. The tests could be set up at centers and monitored in the same way the SAT is monitored.

No, but instead, people should take a basic history and IQ test to vote.

Street smart is code word for being urban trash.
Somalies in Malmo have street smarts...

No. Only people with a Fields Medal or Nobel Prize (except Peace or Economics) should be allowed to vote.

That'll weed out all the retards.

>let only PhD's vote
>party offering most government funding for science wins
this might be hard to gasp but your theoretical expertise most of the time doesn't comply with the real world

the point of our politicians isn't to engineer some perfect society, they're there to represent the interests of their voters and every one who can express what that is should be given a vote

Yea because their smart, conservative drumpf tards only view politics in a 1 dimensional lens "hur durr brown people, (((JEWS))), muh white race, hurr durr high taxes".

>Implying people don't get PhD's in Political Science

Who judges who knows what theyre talking about in what areas? How do you judge it?

a phd means you've pushed science beyonds its boundaries in a very particular field, or even subfield, which implies
. you haven't spent any time researching anything else
. which makes you an ignorant in many, if not almost any other field

so, no, fuck off. you, and your social studies phds

A lot of the humanities and "empathy" based PhDs are lefty cucks, but the redpilledness of STEM PhDs is surprising. I am a PhD is statistics and fair amount of my collaborators in statistics/CS/electrical engineering are redpilled

who writes the questions?
they can be worded in such a way to weed out political opposition the same way that districts can be re-bordered to include a majority political alignment.

Only tax payers with children and military service should vote

PhD's will vote for the most leftist force possible to avoid losing muhgibs.

PhD is not an indicator of intelligence.

There should be voting tests that test you in history, civics, and most importantly, current events over the past year to determine whether or not you have the awareness and agency to be a worthwhile voter.

Sounds like communism.

i would be ok with this right here

I don't know why you're assuming I think people need PhDs to vote, I never said or implied that, I don't think people should even need a degree to vote. Like I said, I believe in a corporatist structure where people can vote based on their position, which implies a knowledge of some area. So, say, labor and business leaders can vote on labor regulations, business law, etc. along with lawyers and other related fields. You shouldn't need a degree to do this, but rather show experience and merit or qualifications in some domain you are able or wanting to vote in. Average people with no knowledge of economics shouldn't be able to vote on economic policy, nor scientifically illiterate people be able to vote on science policy, etc.

We don't have the luxury of subjectivity in fields with absolute right (shit works) an wrong (shit doesn't work) answers.

you could have a bipartisan or impartial committee write them
they should be about knowledge not opinion so its not that easy to do what you suggest

No because traditional education in america is starting to be discovered as a big money hoax. Sure it's good for now but you can make just as much of yourself without a degree.

No only people that have children and are not on government assistance should be allowed to vote.

It should be an income based voting system.

The people who make a certain amount above 100k and pay their fair share of taxes should be allowed to vote.

Ye. Technocracy when?

My biggest mistake is getting my degree in economics. It makes watching any media report or online discussion impossible - people love to talk about things they hardly understand.

Tbh voting tests arent bad policy. Keeps uneducated votes out - even simple questions like "name the PM of the UK" would make sure people that vote actually take the time to read about politics.

>Yea because their smart, conservative drumpf tards only view politics in a 1 dimensional lens "hur durr brown people, (((JEWS))), muh white race, hurr durr high taxes".
great post

Written tests, g-loaded skills tests, experimental tests/lab work demonstration, work experience, accomplishment within a field. There are a lot of ways to determine capability. Successful and accomplished businesspeople for example and accomplished labor union organizers who strike deals, physicists/scientists who are able to organize teams and get grant funding effectively for their projects, etc. Even votes of competence on certain individuals within fields, like mathematicians voting on the credentials of other mathematicians, etc. could all work to some extent. There are a lot of possible ways which could be means tested.
It isn't at all, you just don't know what corporatism is or must have never thought about technocracy or merit.

No!
To be expert in chemistry, engineering, history or something else doesn't make one better in other areas outside his expertise, like politics.
Politics are about opinions and values. One doesn't need education to have a good opinion or values. State should never be the measurer of who has the best opinion.

That won't get politically biased at all.

I'm just worried about the effects of group-think and confirmation bias. And who'd be grading the tests? There's a lot that could go wrong.

Only taxpayers should be able to vote.

47% of all PhDs are earned by Jews and 84% are earned by liberals. Is that what you really want?

Let me guess, you talk to zero people in the academic world about politics?

As said above, most are clueless/don't care or have some "brilliant" ideas to why voting is a waste of time/nullifing the vote works as useful demonstration every election.

Yep, you can have a PhD and still be a fucking idiot/disfunctional member of society

>tfw no GED
A voting test should be given and thus a voter ID. It's no different in operating a motor vehicle. Got to know something about how government works before your ass goes to the polls.

and so we could only tax those who make less than 100k

And who is in charge of writing the tests, judging meritocracy, and decided if you meet the qualifications to vote in certain fields? If my point isn't clear yet, it will become clear in a post or two.

there is still the difference between facts and (((facts)))

That would make the most sense. That way everyone would have some "skin in the game" so to speak.

We need something like jury duty for highly qualified people. They would be asked to do things like vote on policy, grade certain qualification/certification tests, etc. in order to keep society going on. Power and knowledge should necessarily come with responsibility and mandate personal sacrifice.
This is true.
This is true, but I'd guarantee you that PhDs are overwhelmingly more likely than the average public to be net taxpayers.

Not an argument

Sauce? I wouldn't doubt it having a skew but seems high.
t. econ PhD and neither of those.

"But everyone pays sales taxes and the tax of being consumerist chattel exploited by the elite who subvert the system to maintain their riches"

How do you refute this argument?

No, you can be intellectually smart but emotionally infantile. RE: women.

>white males
>landowners

>You can have a PhD and still be brick stupid in unrelated areas.
see: Ben Carson

>PHD's jews and liberals.

Not saying you are lying, but SOURCE?

I somewhat agree, but what's your point?

People within the same field, you'd get something like a closed loop of qualified people who interact with other loops of people in different fields, opening up the loop and field of governance a little more. Is there room for error and negative arbitration? Absolutely. However, the chance for error is much bigger when handing power over to unqualified idiots in any field as opposed to limiting the power of jurisdiction to people within certain domains they are objectively qualified for and good at. I trust scientists in science, lawyers in law, etc. much more than just some random normie on any of them.

Ljl LRM trash

Fucking idiots. People with PhD's are only knowledgeable in one field.

These people are smart in a narrow field of study. Outside of that, they are not necessarily that wise.

No.
Just make it taxpayers only.

Except a lot of times, what you are doing during your dissertation is fairly similar (if not more difficult in some ways) to what you will be doing in practice. Producing new knowledge is a difficult thing to do.

>phd gender studies

thanks but no thanks

The only logical conclusion

Refutation: If you're living on benefits (i.e., a net drain) that money isn't yours to begin with, as it was given to you rather than earned.

yes its true and i too see how it can be manipulated ( and probably would)
but it can also be well made
for laws its the easiest just asking for whats written on it no interpretation
for candidates is harder but you could solicite they provide a document stating their policies and stands and ask about those not what they have said or interpretations

>itt: advocate for the degree you're doing to be able to vote and disregard every other

Simply because you know mathematics and browse Sup Forums doesn't make you smart or a worthy candidate for politics

I literally didn't say anything about only PhDs being allowed to vote. What I said is to limit peoples' ability to vote to areas in which they have knowledge/expertise, which is in line with what you just said.

Only citizens who are/have served in the military should be able to vote.

What about JDs and MDs? Do those count or only PhDs?

So a small group of only the "qualified" can judge you, and tell you if you're qualified enough to affect the system in certain areas, and only the toppest of the top qualified may enter this small group of elite system and be able to pass judgement on others, thus continue using the cycle?

Just like in my Japanese animes!

SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP

White land owning males are the only ones who should be able to vote or those who served in the military. Basically anyone who has a serious investment in the outcome of the nation.

> has a PhD
> it's super smart
> I mean, super smart at everything

When will this meme end? Yes, researchers should have basic logic down but other than physicians or mathematicians, most are idiots when politics arise. Education at the University doesn't make you a good citizen

Works for me. You have served your country, you are paying for your country and you have a very personal reason why you want to keep your country safe and healthy.
yup, but see above, even better.

idk, i don't see our current system as being a problem, but it could be made better through rank voting and popular vote. like i said before in the thread, i think people that can express their own self interests should be allowed to vote, but I see your point where people are so uneducated as to what the politicians are saying that they are voting against their own self interests.

>Service = citizenship.

THIS!!!
Heinlein had it right!

The problem with the "educated voter" meme is that it doesnt account for how educated about politics the egghead is. If you spent all your time getting a PhD, you probably didnt spend any time learning about political dynamics and just vote Democrat because its the cool thing to do and you desperately want to fit in cause youre such a nerd

hey cringelord, i don't need to argue anything. i haven't said a word about my political affiliations in this thread, i only said those i know don't know shit about politics and they are leaning left without being able to argue for it.

This is just a stupid idea, just think about it for more than a second.

No, but only people with a masters degree or higher should be allowed to be on television, or post on the internet.