The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Strong Support for Voter ID Across the Board
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The left is concerned about voter suppression, but the simple requirement that a voter present a valid ID at the time of voting isn’t what most people, including most Democrats, perceive to be suppression:

The survey doesn’t provide further cross-tabulated data, but it looks like white Democrats are close to split on the question. All other major subgroups, including non-white Democrats, are on board with the requirement. Hispanics, the putative victims of voter ID requirements, support it by a margin of nearly 3-to-1.

You wouldn’t know it listening to the pundit class talk about the issue. Requiring an ID is no more a poll tax than writing a check for groceries or picking up a pack of cigarettes is. Making a big fuss about the requirement is a good way to sow distrust in the process.

In contrast to the elites, regular leftists put a lot of moral emphasis on perceived fairness. This is an illustration of as much. Voter ID requirements do marginally benefit Republicans but a majority of Democrats still support them. Civics aren’t quite dead yet.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Fairness, Polling 
Hide 37 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:

    What, in the end, difference does it make?

    We all know that voter ID makes some forms of cheating more difficult. That’s why advanced countries such as Mexico, Uganda, etc. all issue a strong, tamper resistant, voter ID, in order to prevent cheating and preserve the integrity of the ballot. Two goals that the Progressives of 120 years ago strongly supported, by the way.

    We just saw in 2020 why the DNCe strongly opposes voter ID. It is not complex. It is “Who? Whom?” all the way down.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @1John
    @anon

    Two days ago, four of us dine at a pub & when I asked their thoughts on what was occurring at our southern border no one said - INVASION. Yes, we have a problem alright & we r the problem - we can’t c the reality. Our priority is having tens of thousands of our soldiers guarding the DMZ, but, not our border. To add insult to injury, we r financing this INVASION.

  2. Do Dems live in La-La Land? 43% of ’em do NOT support voter ID and yet they don’t believe ‘voter fraud’ to be possible‽

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Vergissmeinnicht


    Do Dems live in La-La Land? 43% of ’em do NOT support voter ID and yet they don’t believe ‘voter fraud’ to be possible‽
     
    Dems are mocking you. Dems are flexing. What they say makes no sense, they know it, you know it, and they know you know it, and they think that it's hilarious, because they don't think that you can do anything about it.

    The point is not that Dems live in La-La Land. The point is that they can make you live in La-La Land while they rule over it.

    Replies: @Realist

  3. @Vergissmeinnicht
    Do Dems live in La-La Land? 43% of 'em do NOT support voter ID and yet they don't believe 'voter fraud' to be possible‽

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Do Dems live in La-La Land? 43% of ’em do NOT support voter ID and yet they don’t believe ‘voter fraud’ to be possible‽

    Dems are mocking you. Dems are flexing. What they say makes no sense, they know it, you know it, and they know you know it, and they think that it’s hilarious, because they don’t think that you can do anything about it.

    The point is not that Dems live in La-La Land. The point is that they can make you live in La-La Land while they rule over it.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Dems are mocking you. Dems are flexing. What they say makes no sense, they know it, you know it, and they know you know it, and they think that it’s hilarious, because they don’t think that you can do anything about it.
     
    Dems are mocking you. Dems are flexing. What they say makes no sense, they know it, you know it, and they know you know it, and they think that it’s hilarious, because they don’t think that you will do anything about it.

    FIFY

    And they are correct.

    Replies: @AndrewR

  4. Biden wants to make AR-15s an NFA item which means an extensive background check and a $200 application. Even if you already own one he wants to make everyone register them and submit all kinds of information to the government.

    Voting? What’s yer name son?

  5. The left is concerned about voter suppression,…

    How’s this for voter suppression…only those with an IQ of 110 or greater should be allowed to vote. As long as this country insists on having the failed form of government…Democracy…try to make it as presentable as possible.

    • Replies: @216
    @Realist

    The divorce of the franchise from taxation was a mistake.

    Replies: @A123

    , @dfordoom
    @Realist


    only those with an IQ of 110 or greater should be allowed to vote.
     
    That's a good plan if you want the Democrats to be in power permanently. Disenfranchise the Deplorables. Disenfranchise the guns and God crowd. Disenfranchise the MAGA Hat Brigade.

    Are you sure you still think limiting voting to the elites is a good idea?

    Replies: @Realist, @Twinkie

  6. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Vergissmeinnicht


    Do Dems live in La-La Land? 43% of ’em do NOT support voter ID and yet they don’t believe ‘voter fraud’ to be possible‽
     
    Dems are mocking you. Dems are flexing. What they say makes no sense, they know it, you know it, and they know you know it, and they think that it's hilarious, because they don't think that you can do anything about it.

    The point is not that Dems live in La-La Land. The point is that they can make you live in La-La Land while they rule over it.

    Replies: @Realist

    Dems are mocking you. Dems are flexing. What they say makes no sense, they know it, you know it, and they know you know it, and they think that it’s hilarious, because they don’t think that you can do anything about it.

    Dems are mocking you. Dems are flexing. What they say makes no sense, they know it, you know it, and they know you know it, and they think that it’s hilarious, because they don’t think that you will do anything about it.

    FIFY

    And they are correct.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Realist

    It's still astounding to me that voter ID is controversial. I literally can't go to the mall without possibly being asked to see ID (my local mall doesn't allow unaccompanied minors due to "youth" violence... You've probably heard of a violent incident there that made national headlines). But somehow it's violating my rights to be asked to show ID in order to vote?

  7. Truth is you can’t buy a pack of cigarettes without producing ID if you are under 30. Democrats are real sticklers on things like licensing, credentialing and producing page after page of documentation to even enroll your kid in a school ( something you are required to do) but fight tooth and nail to prevent even asking if you are a US citizen on a census form. Not prove it just ask the question.

  8. @Realist
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Dems are mocking you. Dems are flexing. What they say makes no sense, they know it, you know it, and they know you know it, and they think that it’s hilarious, because they don’t think that you can do anything about it.
     
    Dems are mocking you. Dems are flexing. What they say makes no sense, they know it, you know it, and they know you know it, and they think that it’s hilarious, because they don’t think that you will do anything about it.

    FIFY

    And they are correct.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    It’s still astounding to me that voter ID is controversial. I literally can’t go to the mall without possibly being asked to see ID (my local mall doesn’t allow unaccompanied minors due to “youth” violence… You’ve probably heard of a violent incident there that made national headlines). But somehow it’s violating my rights to be asked to show ID in order to vote?

    • Thanks: Realist
  9. “Voter ID? Trampling on our rights!”
    “Vaccine ID? Now you’re talking.”

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
  10. Voter ID is vital in identifying the absolute dolts in the society.

    Those self identifying as being stupid enough to vote in a completely rigged system should be given the opportunity.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @RoatanBill

    I don't vote for a somewhat similar reason, but the last two election cycles actually provided evidence in favor of voting. Trump in 2016 and then the Georgia senate runoff debacle in 2020. Especially the latter provides good arguments to keep voting, even in our system (unless you believe in accelerationism).

    Replies: @RoatanBill

  11. All other major subgroups, including non-white Democrats, are on board with the requirement. … You wouldn’t know it listening to the pundit class talk about the issue.

    But they know it, which is why they never raise the issue except in terms that frame the issue their way: “suppression”, etc.

  12. @RoatanBill
    Voter ID is vital in identifying the absolute dolts in the society.

    Those self identifying as being stupid enough to vote in a completely rigged system should be given the opportunity.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    I don’t vote for a somewhat similar reason, but the last two election cycles actually provided evidence in favor of voting. Trump in 2016 and then the Georgia senate runoff debacle in 2020. Especially the latter provides good arguments to keep voting, even in our system (unless you believe in accelerationism).

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    @Chrisnonymous

    I don't vote because I don't believe in any system that elevates useless politicians above the common man. Voting is the process whereby the average person gives his consent to be taken advantage of by a cunning criminal class. I withhold my consent as a sovereign individual, not a slave.

  13. @Realist

    The left is concerned about voter suppression,...
     
    How's this for voter suppression...only those with an IQ of 110 or greater should be allowed to vote. As long as this country insists on having the failed form of government...Democracy...try to make it as presentable as possible.

    Replies: @216, @dfordoom

    The divorce of the franchise from taxation was a mistake.

    • Replies: @A123
    @216


    The divorce of the franchise from taxation was a mistake.
     
    You are on the right track, but need to adapt the concept further for modern times.

    • Everyone pays State Sales tax.
    • Almost everyone employed pays FICA.

    Paying more tax than benefits received is harder to enforce, but conceptually more robust.

    It would allow ruthlessly tracking down Starbucks and other "buckian(?)" tax dodgers. Public questioning (a.k.a. inflicting excruciating penalties) on their CEO's to be available on-demand @ $100/viewer.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @John Johnson

  14. @Chrisnonymous
    @RoatanBill

    I don't vote for a somewhat similar reason, but the last two election cycles actually provided evidence in favor of voting. Trump in 2016 and then the Georgia senate runoff debacle in 2020. Especially the latter provides good arguments to keep voting, even in our system (unless you believe in accelerationism).

    Replies: @RoatanBill

    I don’t vote because I don’t believe in any system that elevates useless politicians above the common man. Voting is the process whereby the average person gives his consent to be taken advantage of by a cunning criminal class. I withhold my consent as a sovereign individual, not a slave.

  15. It’s interesting that whenever this subject comes up you’ll have rightoids supporting various methods of voter suppression, such as linking the right to vote to IQ or to taxation or to home ownership or military service, etc etc.

    So maybe Democrats are worried about voter suppression because there really are people on the Right who are very much in favour of voter suppression?

    • Replies: @anon
    @dfordoom

    It’s interesting that whenever this subject comes up you’ll have rightoids supporting various methods of voter suppression, such as linking the right to vote to IQ or to taxation or to home ownership or military service, etc etc.

    Or actually being a citizen of the country, how racyss!

    Say, they also link the right to vote to being alive. So I guess you're in favor of dead people voting? Failure to let dead people vote == Voter Suppreshun!

    How about imaginary people, they should vote too, am I right?

    lol.

    You don't know what voter suppression actually is.

    , @John Johnson
    @dfordoom

    So maybe Democrats are worried about voter suppression because there really are people on the Right who are very much in favour of voter suppression?

    No they are mainly worried that they will get fewer votes from felons.

    They have no problem with ID for all other government transactions.

  16. anon[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom
    It's interesting that whenever this subject comes up you'll have rightoids supporting various methods of voter suppression, such as linking the right to vote to IQ or to taxation or to home ownership or military service, etc etc.

    So maybe Democrats are worried about voter suppression because there really are people on the Right who are very much in favour of voter suppression?

    Replies: @anon, @John Johnson

    It’s interesting that whenever this subject comes up you’ll have rightoids supporting various methods of voter suppression, such as linking the right to vote to IQ or to taxation or to home ownership or military service, etc etc.

    Or actually being a citizen of the country, how racyss!

    Say, they also link the right to vote to being alive. So I guess you’re in favor of dead people voting? Failure to let dead people vote == Voter Suppreshun!

    How about imaginary people, they should vote too, am I right?

    lol.

    You don’t know what voter suppression actually is.

    • LOL: John Johnson
  17. @216
    @Realist

    The divorce of the franchise from taxation was a mistake.

    Replies: @A123

    The divorce of the franchise from taxation was a mistake.

    You are on the right track, but need to adapt the concept further for modern times.

    • Everyone pays State Sales tax.
    • Almost everyone employed pays FICA.

    Paying more tax than benefits received is harder to enforce, but conceptually more robust.

    It would allow ruthlessly tracking down Starbucks and other “buckian(?)” tax dodgers. Public questioning (a.k.a. inflicting excruciating penalties) on their CEO’s to be available on-demand @ $100/viewer.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @A123

    • Everyone pays State Sales tax.
    • Almost everyone employed pays FICA.

    I think you mean everyone pays FICA even if they make money through capital gains.

    Paying more tax than benefits received is harder to enforce, but conceptually more robust.

    Yea but even most Democrats don't talk about fixing SS that way.

  18. @dfordoom
    It's interesting that whenever this subject comes up you'll have rightoids supporting various methods of voter suppression, such as linking the right to vote to IQ or to taxation or to home ownership or military service, etc etc.

    So maybe Democrats are worried about voter suppression because there really are people on the Right who are very much in favour of voter suppression?

    Replies: @anon, @John Johnson

    So maybe Democrats are worried about voter suppression because there really are people on the Right who are very much in favour of voter suppression?

    No they are mainly worried that they will get fewer votes from felons.

    They have no problem with ID for all other government transactions.

  19. @A123
    @216


    The divorce of the franchise from taxation was a mistake.
     
    You are on the right track, but need to adapt the concept further for modern times.

    • Everyone pays State Sales tax.
    • Almost everyone employed pays FICA.

    Paying more tax than benefits received is harder to enforce, but conceptually more robust.

    It would allow ruthlessly tracking down Starbucks and other "buckian(?)" tax dodgers. Public questioning (a.k.a. inflicting excruciating penalties) on their CEO's to be available on-demand @ $100/viewer.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @John Johnson

    • Everyone pays State Sales tax.
    • Almost everyone employed pays FICA.

    I think you mean everyone pays FICA even if they make money through capital gains.

    Paying more tax than benefits received is harder to enforce, but conceptually more robust.

    Yea but even most Democrats don’t talk about fixing SS that way.

  20. This really shows how pathetic and useless the GOP is. In 2016 they controlled all three branches of government and they still have a majority on the Supreme Court and control the majority of state legislatures yet they won’t use that power to implement policies that even a majority of Dem voters support.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @A123
    @2070paradigmshift


    This really shows how pathetic and useless the GOP is. In 2016 they controlled all three branches of government
     
    It shows the uselessness of the outgoing GOP(e) .

    Trump began the process of changing the party from Corporate Globalist to Christian Populist. However, in 2016 there were still a large number of GOP(e) swamp critters. Trump's presidency flushed these into the open. Across the House & Senate, they are all "retiring" or face primaries by MAGA Populists.
     

    https://i.imgur.com/hhBM5tS.jpg
     

    McConnell is planning his exit. MAGA Populists are organizing a well funded 2022 Primary challenge to Thune.
    ____

    The next MAGA President taking office in a little less than 4 years will have a fully Populist GOP in the Senate. This will result in much stronger Cabinet & Judiciary picks, as compromise with the GOP(e) will not be required.

    PEACE 😇

  21. @2070paradigmshift
    This really shows how pathetic and useless the GOP is. In 2016 they controlled all three branches of government and they still have a majority on the Supreme Court and control the majority of state legislatures yet they won't use that power to implement policies that even a majority of Dem voters support.

    Replies: @A123

    This really shows how pathetic and useless the GOP is. In 2016 they controlled all three branches of government

    It shows the uselessness of the outgoing GOP(e) .

    Trump began the process of changing the party from Corporate Globalist to Christian Populist. However, in 2016 there were still a large number of GOP(e) swamp critters. Trump’s presidency flushed these into the open. Across the House & Senate, they are all “retiring” or face primaries by MAGA Populists.
     
     

    McConnell is planning his exit. MAGA Populists are organizing a well funded 2022 Primary challenge to Thune.
    ____

    The next MAGA President taking office in a little less than 4 years will have a fully Populist GOP in the Senate. This will result in much stronger Cabinet & Judiciary picks, as compromise with the GOP(e) will not be required.

    PEACE 😇

  22. @Realist

    The left is concerned about voter suppression,...
     
    How's this for voter suppression...only those with an IQ of 110 or greater should be allowed to vote. As long as this country insists on having the failed form of government...Democracy...try to make it as presentable as possible.

    Replies: @216, @dfordoom

    only those with an IQ of 110 or greater should be allowed to vote.

    That’s a good plan if you want the Democrats to be in power permanently. Disenfranchise the Deplorables. Disenfranchise the guns and God crowd. Disenfranchise the MAGA Hat Brigade.

    Are you sure you still think limiting voting to the elites is a good idea?

    • Replies: @Realist
    @dfordoom


    That’s a good plan if you want the Democrats to be in power permanently.
     
    So you believe Democrats on average have higher IQs than Republicans? Keep in mind the Democrats elected a braindead asshole to the Presidency...Biden was born an idiot...now he is braindead.

    Republicans have allowed Democrats to take control. The problem is there are too many dumb bastards across the spectrum.

    Disenfranchise the Deplorables. Disenfranchise the guns and God crowd. Disenfranchise the MAGA Hat Brigade.
     
    So you believe that those you listed have IQs below 110?

    Are you sure you still think limiting voting to the elites is a good idea?
     
    I said nothing about elites. I do not consider elites to have a lock on intelligence...on the contrary...I consider them rather stupid.

    But we are where we are today due to allowing stupid people to vote, along with the indifference of White people to their plight.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    That’s a good plan if you want the Democrats to be in power permanently.
     
    You should stop watching the U.S. on TV to form your opinions and read more: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265852713_Cognitive_ability_and_party_identity_in_the_United_States

    This study examines three other measures of cognitive ability from the GSS: a test of probability knowledge, a test of verbal reasoning, and an assessment by the interviewer of how well the respondent understood the survey questions. In all three cases, individuals who identify as Republican score slightly higher than those who identify as Democrat; the unadjusted differences are 1–3 IQ points, 2–4 IQ points and 2–3 IQ points, respectively. [Boldface mine.]
     

    Replies: @dfordoom

  23. When I tell people that voting should be no more or less burdensome than buying a beer (“May I see your ID?” “Oh, left it home? Please come back with it.”), no one has much of a rejoinder.

  24. @anon
    What, in the end, difference does it make?

    We all know that voter ID makes some forms of cheating more difficult. That's why advanced countries such as Mexico, Uganda, etc. all issue a strong, tamper resistant, voter ID, in order to prevent cheating and preserve the integrity of the ballot. Two goals that the Progressives of 120 years ago strongly supported, by the way.

    We just saw in 2020 why the DNCe strongly opposes voter ID. It is not complex. It is "Who? Whom?" all the way down.

    Replies: @1John

    Two days ago, four of us dine at a pub & when I asked their thoughts on what was occurring at our southern border no one said – INVASION. Yes, we have a problem alright & we r the problem – we can’t c the reality. Our priority is having tens of thousands of our soldiers guarding the DMZ, but, not our border. To add insult to injury, we r financing this INVASION.

  25. @dfordoom
    @Realist


    only those with an IQ of 110 or greater should be allowed to vote.
     
    That's a good plan if you want the Democrats to be in power permanently. Disenfranchise the Deplorables. Disenfranchise the guns and God crowd. Disenfranchise the MAGA Hat Brigade.

    Are you sure you still think limiting voting to the elites is a good idea?

    Replies: @Realist, @Twinkie

    That’s a good plan if you want the Democrats to be in power permanently.

    So you believe Democrats on average have higher IQs than Republicans? Keep in mind the Democrats elected a braindead asshole to the Presidency…Biden was born an idiot…now he is braindead.

    Republicans have allowed Democrats to take control. The problem is there are too many dumb bastards across the spectrum.

    Disenfranchise the Deplorables. Disenfranchise the guns and God crowd. Disenfranchise the MAGA Hat Brigade.

    So you believe that those you listed have IQs below 110?

    Are you sure you still think limiting voting to the elites is a good idea?

    I said nothing about elites. I do not consider elites to have a lock on intelligence…on the contrary…I consider them rather stupid.

    But we are where we are today due to allowing stupid people to vote, along with the indifference of White people to their plight.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Realist


    So you believe Democrats on average have higher IQs than Republicans?
     
    The Republicans with high IQ are more likely to be the neo-liberal Country Club Republicans, the ones who will support the GOPe. The ones who think the core values of the Republican Party are tax cuts for the rich and...well basically just tax cuts for the rich are neo-liberalism.

    Trump's supporter base, the MAGA Hat lot, are obviously of lower average IQ.

    So limiting voting to IQs of 110+ would disenfranchise much of Trump's supporter base, and much of the base that any future populist leader would have to rely on.

    Among Democrats the IQ 110+ voters are going to be the Woke white liberals.

    So whether such a move would benefit the Republican Party or the Democrat Party isn't the point. It would benefit the more globalist neo-liberal Woke wings of both parties.


    Disenfranchise the Deplorables. Disenfranchise the guns and God crowd. Disenfranchise the MAGA Hat Brigade.
     
    So you believe that those you listed have IQs below 110?
     
    Well yes. Pretty obviously. How many of the Deplorables do you think are nuclear physicists or brain surgeons?

    I said nothing about elites. I do not consider elites to have a lock on intelligence…on the contrary…I consider them rather stupid.
     
    I consider them to be high IQ. Having a high IQ is not incompatible with believing in crazy bizarre irrational things. In fact high IQ seems to make it more likely that people will believe in crazy bizarre irrational things. That's why I think it would be catastrophic to limit the franchise to high IQ people.

    Your suggestion would mean the complete political dominance of the elites, to an even greater extent than their current dominance.

    I assume that the reason for your enthusiasm for limiting voting rights by IQ is that you think it would be a way of disenfranchising blacks. But the result would be the disenfranchising of a much larger number of poor and working-class whites. Your suggestion, if implemented, would destroy any chance of a populist candidate ever gaining power.

    Replies: @Realist

  26. @Realist
    @dfordoom


    That’s a good plan if you want the Democrats to be in power permanently.
     
    So you believe Democrats on average have higher IQs than Republicans? Keep in mind the Democrats elected a braindead asshole to the Presidency...Biden was born an idiot...now he is braindead.

    Republicans have allowed Democrats to take control. The problem is there are too many dumb bastards across the spectrum.

    Disenfranchise the Deplorables. Disenfranchise the guns and God crowd. Disenfranchise the MAGA Hat Brigade.
     
    So you believe that those you listed have IQs below 110?

    Are you sure you still think limiting voting to the elites is a good idea?
     
    I said nothing about elites. I do not consider elites to have a lock on intelligence...on the contrary...I consider them rather stupid.

    But we are where we are today due to allowing stupid people to vote, along with the indifference of White people to their plight.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    So you believe Democrats on average have higher IQs than Republicans?

    The Republicans with high IQ are more likely to be the neo-liberal Country Club Republicans, the ones who will support the GOPe. The ones who think the core values of the Republican Party are tax cuts for the rich and…well basically just tax cuts for the rich are neo-liberalism.

    Trump’s supporter base, the MAGA Hat lot, are obviously of lower average IQ.

    So limiting voting to IQs of 110+ would disenfranchise much of Trump’s supporter base, and much of the base that any future populist leader would have to rely on.

    Among Democrats the IQ 110+ voters are going to be the Woke white liberals.

    So whether such a move would benefit the Republican Party or the Democrat Party isn’t the point. It would benefit the more globalist neo-liberal Woke wings of both parties.

    Disenfranchise the Deplorables. Disenfranchise the guns and God crowd. Disenfranchise the MAGA Hat Brigade.

    So you believe that those you listed have IQs below 110?

    Well yes. Pretty obviously. How many of the Deplorables do you think are nuclear physicists or brain surgeons?

    I said nothing about elites. I do not consider elites to have a lock on intelligence…on the contrary…I consider them rather stupid.

    I consider them to be high IQ. Having a high IQ is not incompatible with believing in crazy bizarre irrational things. In fact high IQ seems to make it more likely that people will believe in crazy bizarre irrational things. That’s why I think it would be catastrophic to limit the franchise to high IQ people.

    Your suggestion would mean the complete political dominance of the elites, to an even greater extent than their current dominance.

    I assume that the reason for your enthusiasm for limiting voting rights by IQ is that you think it would be a way of disenfranchising blacks. But the result would be the disenfranchising of a much larger number of poor and working-class whites. Your suggestion, if implemented, would destroy any chance of a populist candidate ever gaining power.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @dfordoom


    Trump’s supporter base, the MAGA Hat lot, are obviously of lower average IQ.
     
    Is this an attempt to support the MAGA lot...if so you have a crazy approach.

    I assume that the reason for your enthusiasm for limiting voting rights by IQ is that you think it would be a way of disenfranchising blacks.
     
    Not at all. My reason is straightforward. As long as this country insists on retaining the unworkable form of government called Democracy, the electorate should be from the right side of the curve...to make it a little less unworkable.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  27. @dfordoom
    @Realist


    only those with an IQ of 110 or greater should be allowed to vote.
     
    That's a good plan if you want the Democrats to be in power permanently. Disenfranchise the Deplorables. Disenfranchise the guns and God crowd. Disenfranchise the MAGA Hat Brigade.

    Are you sure you still think limiting voting to the elites is a good idea?

    Replies: @Realist, @Twinkie

    That’s a good plan if you want the Democrats to be in power permanently.

    You should stop watching the U.S. on TV to form your opinions and read more: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265852713_Cognitive_ability_and_party_identity_in_the_United_States

    This study examines three other measures of cognitive ability from the GSS: a test of probability knowledge, a test of verbal reasoning, and an assessment by the interviewer of how well the respondent understood the survey questions. In all three cases, individuals who identify as Republican score slightly higher than those who identify as Democrat; the unadjusted differences are 1–3 IQ points, 2–4 IQ points and 2–3 IQ points, respectively. [Boldface mine.]

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie

    The problem is not the IQ of Republicans vs Democrats. The problem is the IQ of voters who would support a populist candidate vs the IQ of those who would support a mainstream liberal (or neo-liberal) candidate.

    Limiting voting rights by IQ would eliminate the base of a candidate like Trump. A candidate like Trump would not even get nominated.

    I did express myself poorly. I should have said that limiting voting by IQ would guarantee permanent liberal (or neo-liberal) government.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  28. VOter-ID is mandatory all across Europe. That’s too funny, bc the very same pundit-class always looks to Europe’s stricter gun-laws as examples. So why not adopt another “best practice”-policy frpm the “old world”?

    Ah right, bc it’s not about actually mending obvious problems with voting in the USA.

  29. @dfordoom
    @Realist


    So you believe Democrats on average have higher IQs than Republicans?
     
    The Republicans with high IQ are more likely to be the neo-liberal Country Club Republicans, the ones who will support the GOPe. The ones who think the core values of the Republican Party are tax cuts for the rich and...well basically just tax cuts for the rich are neo-liberalism.

    Trump's supporter base, the MAGA Hat lot, are obviously of lower average IQ.

    So limiting voting to IQs of 110+ would disenfranchise much of Trump's supporter base, and much of the base that any future populist leader would have to rely on.

    Among Democrats the IQ 110+ voters are going to be the Woke white liberals.

    So whether such a move would benefit the Republican Party or the Democrat Party isn't the point. It would benefit the more globalist neo-liberal Woke wings of both parties.


    Disenfranchise the Deplorables. Disenfranchise the guns and God crowd. Disenfranchise the MAGA Hat Brigade.
     
    So you believe that those you listed have IQs below 110?
     
    Well yes. Pretty obviously. How many of the Deplorables do you think are nuclear physicists or brain surgeons?

    I said nothing about elites. I do not consider elites to have a lock on intelligence…on the contrary…I consider them rather stupid.
     
    I consider them to be high IQ. Having a high IQ is not incompatible with believing in crazy bizarre irrational things. In fact high IQ seems to make it more likely that people will believe in crazy bizarre irrational things. That's why I think it would be catastrophic to limit the franchise to high IQ people.

    Your suggestion would mean the complete political dominance of the elites, to an even greater extent than their current dominance.

    I assume that the reason for your enthusiasm for limiting voting rights by IQ is that you think it would be a way of disenfranchising blacks. But the result would be the disenfranchising of a much larger number of poor and working-class whites. Your suggestion, if implemented, would destroy any chance of a populist candidate ever gaining power.

    Replies: @Realist

    Trump’s supporter base, the MAGA Hat lot, are obviously of lower average IQ.

    Is this an attempt to support the MAGA lot…if so you have a crazy approach.

    I assume that the reason for your enthusiasm for limiting voting rights by IQ is that you think it would be a way of disenfranchising blacks.

    Not at all. My reason is straightforward. As long as this country insists on retaining the unworkable form of government called Democracy, the electorate should be from the right side of the curve…to make it a little less unworkable.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Realist


    Is this an attempt to support the MAGA lot…if so you have a crazy approach.
     
    I'm no fan of the MAGAtards. I was merely pointing out that limiting voting to IQs of 110+ would disenfranchise a very large chunk of Trump's base.

    My reason is straightforward. As long as this country insists on retaining the unworkable form of government called Democracy, the electorate should be from the right side of the curve…to make it a little less unworkable.
     
    It might make it a little bit more workable but it would be likely to make government a lot more liberal. I was just surprised that anyone here would support an idea that would favour the interests of the elites.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  30. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    That’s a good plan if you want the Democrats to be in power permanently.
     
    You should stop watching the U.S. on TV to form your opinions and read more: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265852713_Cognitive_ability_and_party_identity_in_the_United_States

    This study examines three other measures of cognitive ability from the GSS: a test of probability knowledge, a test of verbal reasoning, and an assessment by the interviewer of how well the respondent understood the survey questions. In all three cases, individuals who identify as Republican score slightly higher than those who identify as Democrat; the unadjusted differences are 1–3 IQ points, 2–4 IQ points and 2–3 IQ points, respectively. [Boldface mine.]
     

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The problem is not the IQ of Republicans vs Democrats. The problem is the IQ of voters who would support a populist candidate vs the IQ of those who would support a mainstream liberal (or neo-liberal) candidate.

    Limiting voting rights by IQ would eliminate the base of a candidate like Trump. A candidate like Trump would not even get nominated.

    I did express myself poorly. I should have said that limiting voting by IQ would guarantee permanent liberal (or neo-liberal) government.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    I should have said that limiting voting by IQ would guarantee permanent liberal (or neo-liberal) government.
     
    Social scientists who contort themselves to explain away the result that, in fact, Republican voters have higher average cognitive ability than Democratic voters, usually speculate that it's the libertarians (who vote Republican) pull up the average. In other words, even they acknowledge that it's not liberals with the higher IQ.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @nebulafox

  31. @Realist
    @dfordoom


    Trump’s supporter base, the MAGA Hat lot, are obviously of lower average IQ.
     
    Is this an attempt to support the MAGA lot...if so you have a crazy approach.

    I assume that the reason for your enthusiasm for limiting voting rights by IQ is that you think it would be a way of disenfranchising blacks.
     
    Not at all. My reason is straightforward. As long as this country insists on retaining the unworkable form of government called Democracy, the electorate should be from the right side of the curve...to make it a little less unworkable.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Is this an attempt to support the MAGA lot…if so you have a crazy approach.

    I’m no fan of the MAGAtards. I was merely pointing out that limiting voting to IQs of 110+ would disenfranchise a very large chunk of Trump’s base.

    My reason is straightforward. As long as this country insists on retaining the unworkable form of government called Democracy, the electorate should be from the right side of the curve…to make it a little less unworkable.

    It might make it a little bit more workable but it would be likely to make government a lot more liberal. I was just surprised that anyone here would support an idea that would favour the interests of the elites.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    I was merely pointing out that limiting voting to IQs of 110+ would disenfranchise a very large chunk of Trump’s base.
     
    Maybe. But what we do know for certain is that it would disenfranchise a sizable chunk of the Democratic base, the chunk that is currently the kingmaker of the party internally - the black vote.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  32. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie

    The problem is not the IQ of Republicans vs Democrats. The problem is the IQ of voters who would support a populist candidate vs the IQ of those who would support a mainstream liberal (or neo-liberal) candidate.

    Limiting voting rights by IQ would eliminate the base of a candidate like Trump. A candidate like Trump would not even get nominated.

    I did express myself poorly. I should have said that limiting voting by IQ would guarantee permanent liberal (or neo-liberal) government.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    I should have said that limiting voting by IQ would guarantee permanent liberal (or neo-liberal) government.

    Social scientists who contort themselves to explain away the result that, in fact, Republican voters have higher average cognitive ability than Democratic voters, usually speculate that it’s the libertarians (who vote Republican) pull up the average. In other words, even they acknowledge that it’s not liberals with the higher IQ.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Social scientists who contort themselves to explain away the result that, in fact, Republican voters have higher average cognitive ability than Democratic voters, usually speculate that it’s the libertarians (who vote Republican) pull up the average. In other words, even they acknowledge that it’s not liberals with the higher IQ.
     
    I suspect that we have very different ideas on the meaning of the word liberal.
    , @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    IQ is overrated, anyhow. You don't need a higher-than-average one to discern when one political party views you with existential contempt and that voting for it would be stupid.

  33. @dfordoom
    @Realist


    Is this an attempt to support the MAGA lot…if so you have a crazy approach.
     
    I'm no fan of the MAGAtards. I was merely pointing out that limiting voting to IQs of 110+ would disenfranchise a very large chunk of Trump's base.

    My reason is straightforward. As long as this country insists on retaining the unworkable form of government called Democracy, the electorate should be from the right side of the curve…to make it a little less unworkable.
     
    It might make it a little bit more workable but it would be likely to make government a lot more liberal. I was just surprised that anyone here would support an idea that would favour the interests of the elites.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    I was merely pointing out that limiting voting to IQs of 110+ would disenfranchise a very large chunk of Trump’s base.

    Maybe. But what we do know for certain is that it would disenfranchise a sizable chunk of the Democratic base, the chunk that is currently the kingmaker of the party internally – the black vote.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    I was merely pointing out that limiting voting to IQs of 110+ would disenfranchise a very large chunk of Trump’s base.
     
    Maybe. But what we do know for certain is that it would disenfranchise a sizable chunk of the Democratic base, the chunk that is currently the kingmaker of the party internally – the black vote.
     
    It doesn't really matter because it's the kind of silly fantasy idea that only the loonier kind of right-winger would suggest. The loonier right-wingers actually believe that the only way they could ever win would be by finding a way to stop blacks from voting.

    I just happen to believe that this idea is an idea that is not only immoral and in the realms of pure fantasy, it would also probably not work anyway.

    The bitter truth is that the far right is increasingly engaged in childish wish-fulfilment fantasies.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  34. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    I should have said that limiting voting by IQ would guarantee permanent liberal (or neo-liberal) government.
     
    Social scientists who contort themselves to explain away the result that, in fact, Republican voters have higher average cognitive ability than Democratic voters, usually speculate that it's the libertarians (who vote Republican) pull up the average. In other words, even they acknowledge that it's not liberals with the higher IQ.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @nebulafox

    Social scientists who contort themselves to explain away the result that, in fact, Republican voters have higher average cognitive ability than Democratic voters, usually speculate that it’s the libertarians (who vote Republican) pull up the average. In other words, even they acknowledge that it’s not liberals with the higher IQ.

    I suspect that we have very different ideas on the meaning of the word liberal.

  35. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    I was merely pointing out that limiting voting to IQs of 110+ would disenfranchise a very large chunk of Trump’s base.
     
    Maybe. But what we do know for certain is that it would disenfranchise a sizable chunk of the Democratic base, the chunk that is currently the kingmaker of the party internally - the black vote.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I was merely pointing out that limiting voting to IQs of 110+ would disenfranchise a very large chunk of Trump’s base.

    Maybe. But what we do know for certain is that it would disenfranchise a sizable chunk of the Democratic base, the chunk that is currently the kingmaker of the party internally – the black vote.

    It doesn’t really matter because it’s the kind of silly fantasy idea that only the loonier kind of right-winger would suggest. The loonier right-wingers actually believe that the only way they could ever win would be by finding a way to stop blacks from voting.

    I just happen to believe that this idea is an idea that is not only immoral and in the realms of pure fantasy, it would also probably not work anyway.

    The bitter truth is that the far right is increasingly engaged in childish wish-fulfilment fantasies.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The loonier right-wingers actually believe ...
     
    ... that less appeal to ridicule might be more persuasive.

    [T]he far right is increasingly ...
     
    ... defined by you as merely that class of persons whose right-of-center views you disapprove. Especially if the persons happen to be Americans.

    Appeal to ridicule can be humorous at first; but when you keep returning to it, it does make one wonder why, if they're so ridiculous, you're still engaged.

    Anyway, the franchise-limitation notion against which you are arguing has obviously been presented only in the form of an irritable half notion. There isn't even a full notion for you to argue against. You yourself have ridiculed democracy, so I don't see what you're bothered about this time.


    The bitter truth is ...
     
    ... that you can do and have done better.
  36. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    I was merely pointing out that limiting voting to IQs of 110+ would disenfranchise a very large chunk of Trump’s base.
     
    Maybe. But what we do know for certain is that it would disenfranchise a sizable chunk of the Democratic base, the chunk that is currently the kingmaker of the party internally – the black vote.
     
    It doesn't really matter because it's the kind of silly fantasy idea that only the loonier kind of right-winger would suggest. The loonier right-wingers actually believe that the only way they could ever win would be by finding a way to stop blacks from voting.

    I just happen to believe that this idea is an idea that is not only immoral and in the realms of pure fantasy, it would also probably not work anyway.

    The bitter truth is that the far right is increasingly engaged in childish wish-fulfilment fantasies.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    The loonier right-wingers actually believe …

    … that less appeal to ridicule might be more persuasive.

    [T]he far right is increasingly …

    … defined by you as merely that class of persons whose right-of-center views you disapprove. Especially if the persons happen to be Americans.

    Appeal to ridicule can be humorous at first; but when you keep returning to it, it does make one wonder why, if they’re so ridiculous, you’re still engaged.

    Anyway, the franchise-limitation notion against which you are arguing has obviously been presented only in the form of an irritable half notion. There isn’t even a full notion for you to argue against. You yourself have ridiculed democracy, so I don’t see what you’re bothered about this time.

    The bitter truth is …

    … that you can do and have done better.

    • Agree: Twinkie
  37. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    I should have said that limiting voting by IQ would guarantee permanent liberal (or neo-liberal) government.
     
    Social scientists who contort themselves to explain away the result that, in fact, Republican voters have higher average cognitive ability than Democratic voters, usually speculate that it's the libertarians (who vote Republican) pull up the average. In other words, even they acknowledge that it's not liberals with the higher IQ.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @nebulafox

    IQ is overrated, anyhow. You don’t need a higher-than-average one to discern when one political party views you with existential contempt and that voting for it would be stupid.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS