Sup Forums

Sup Forums,

An Open Letter and Proposition:

The fact that any citizen, regardless of quality of brain tissue, brain damage, adaptability to connect logic at levels of variance, has THE SAME VOTING POWER as every other, is nothing more than an insult to our collective intelligence.

I propose that we modify henceforth each citizen's vote weight from a range of (0.0 to 1.0) depending on a multitude of tests. For example, my vote weight could be (0.78321) when I mark the ballot.

My question: what tests and formula should be applied to assign this value to each potential voter? Give me the broad strokes Sup Forums...

OBVIOUSLY a mentally retarded person should not have the same voting power as a professor/scientist/engineer etc.

Thoughts Sup Forums ?

Your idea is bureaucratic as fuck, and would be abused on day 0.

faggot

Then you agree that a mentally retarded / feeble-minded person should have the same vote weight as any other citizen?

no one said that democracy is perfect

no, too much trouble.

Just restrict voting rights to Male landowners who pay taxes. I am open to an exception for high IQ's if they do not fit all the previous requirements.

Why the fuck would you let someone decide important shit like this who couldn't give any less of a fuck. Most voters don't read or follow news. Anything they do hear doesn't go beyond a 5 sec sound bite delivered by a bias mainstream media. Why the fuck do you think history keeps repeating itself?

Irrelevant. I agree that your idea is stupid.

You're literally giving the government the ability to judge the individuals democratic worth. The US government. Which would never lie or deceive its citizens, at all, ever, right?

It's a political pandora's box, and I guarantee that it would lead to:

Affirmative action.

Complete bullshit like Professors of Liberal Arts being weighed higher than hardworking men and women doing manual labor jobs, who may just not have had the same financial opportunities.

A bureaucratic hell of rules, that would be abused to politicians and sly people alike.

Why don't we just pick up where the nazis left off and exterminate the untermensch ?

I get that some people are more level headed then others but who gets to quantify the passing grade?

How could a government elected by incompetence have the authority to make that call?

>IQ test
>An IQ of 100 gets 1 vote
>IQs that deviate positively get multiplied by the number of standard deviations that they are from the mean +1
>IQs that deviate negatively get divided by the number of standard deviations that they are from the mean +1
>An IQ of 145 gets 4 votes for being 3 standard deviations higher than the mean
>Literal retards get 1/4 of a vote

Round it to 2 decimal points at the very least. And there's no series of tests which wouldn't, over a long enough time, be altered in order to further political gains by prioritizing the talents/best qualities of those who support a certain political movement.

Too easily abused, no simple cut and dry way to transition into that, creating a bureaucratic nightmare, etc. If you don't want stupid people to have a say, then just throw out democracy and elections.

The problem is this: your model would hand the people with IQ 100-120 all the power, because they have a high IQ, and are numerous. People >120 are rare, and the vote of people 120 are less easily indoctrinated, but they are far fewer.
Basically, you would hand feminists and SJWs your nation on a platter.
I suggest that your vote is proportional to the number of working hours per week. A hard working person with an IQ of 90 is more valuable for the state than a feminist gender studies student with an IQ of 120.

If you do not begin judging an individual's worth, you risk being outvoted by lessers (those who reproduce faster than cockroaches) and bring no advancements to the populace.

So the following would be acceptable accuracy (floatin-point-wise)

(0.73281)
(0.6892)

I wouldn't want to make it as simple as (0.87) as that is not enough precision to make improvements to one's self for the next iteration of individual analysis for the next election cycle.

You're right. If that is your concern though, I suggest just becoming anti-democratic. Your idea alleviates none of the problems you see with the current system.

In theory? Maybe it does, but the practical aspect of it is completely at the mercy of the people implementing it, and those who will maintain it afterwards. It MIGHT just favor retards and morons over highly gifted individuals, simply because the Government is not really known for it's criticism of post-modernism.

I never mentioned IQ, although that may be a variable that is weighed into the final output.

I was seeking what other variables might be potential factors in the weighing formula... what should they be?

example: IQ, Candidate aptitude test on their stances (shows how potent your knowledge of their positions are), ?

All the professors are liberal and all the retards are Trumpeteers.

>Your idea alleviates none of the problems you see with the current system.

By redistributing voting power, how does that not?

Also, we would need to work out the details, but in theory, the format would be open-source.

Well, everyone's current vote weight, in the US at least, is 0. So you might want to fix that first.

> or example, my vote weight could be (0.78321) when I mark the ballot.
Why not allow people to have weights higher than one?

Just as the USA shed the skin of England...

because you can cover infinite within 0.0 to 1.0

example:
0.6437283927162 > 0.6437283927161

what if most average people you meet at the marketplace had a score of 0.0537 (rounded)

But there were select groups of people that decided to perform further research on the candidates, and the amount of resources left within the nation and the world to accurately assess the most apt/wise course of action for the next 4 years. This person might get more weight added to their score, such as 0.4574

0.4574 > 0.0537

yuuuuuge difference, wouldn't you say? and rightfully so, as the latter decided to import the knowledge of existing world issues, the variables known to work with, and where the candidates stand to utilize those resources. The latter person has much more potential to wisely guide the course of the country through his powerful weighted vote...

I think that voting rights should be bound to a 3 part test: first part is an IQ test, you have to score above 100, second part is a logic test, devoid of politics, just simple logic and text comprehension test, third part would be basic questions about politics eg.: who is the current prime minister and basic questions like that. The politics test should not ask about statistics, as they are always manipulated.