Let's define for the purposes of this hypothesis that

  • A good person is someone who act and votes according to his best intentions
  • A smart person is someone who know which party to elect to lead his country to profit.

Let's have these simple assumptions:

  • Smarter people are usually better people
  • Better political representants are usually elected by smart and good people, rather than not-smart people with bad intentions.
  • Statistically speaking, it is more probable for a smart person to get higher score in an IQ test, than for a not-smart one.

Assuming these axioms are correct, is it more probable that the results of elections, where the value of your vote is multiplied by your IQ will be better?

Please note, that this question doesn't consider wheter or not are smart people more likely to be better. And it doesn't consider if IQ tests really filter from the population the better politicans. Also "good" and "smart" probably don't meet the standard usage.

My question is just trying to find if there's anything more in the system of democratical voting.

Thank you.

  • 8
    Given all these assumptions (many of which are highly debatable) this is really a party game conversation rather than something that can be easily answered here. That said, to answer your question, elections are about democracy. Having any qualifier to vote pretty much invalidates the concept of democracy. – user1530 Mar 7 '16 at 19:42
  • 2
    Wheres the cutoff, OP? Who validates these tests? What definition of intelligence are you going to use? Is someone who is intelligent in one area able to completely grasp concepts not in that area? What if someone is intelligent, but just isn't good at taking tests? And further, what safeguards can there be against these tests being used to indiscriminately disenfranchise people you just don't like? – Jeff Lambert Mar 7 '16 at 19:54
  • 1
    Sure, unless it's your vote they take. Then it's revolution, right? – Jeff Lambert Mar 7 '16 at 20:16
  • 1
    @Probably what I'm saying is that this idea is likely to greatly anger those who are disenfranchised, and IMO rightly so. Do you just say, high on a pedastal, "Thats ok guys, it's for your own good," and just expect them to take your word for it? This is a far cry from democracy. – Jeff Lambert Mar 7 '16 at 20:22
  • 2
    I downvoted this question. It isn't clear what the question here is. The last sentence in particular really confuses me. Also, "democratical". – indigochild Mar 8 '16 at 1:55

To answer the title of your question ("What are the problems of IQ tests for elections?"):

  • Genius level (and generally smart people) people wholeheartedly supported Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. Having a high IQ in no way prevents someone from being monumentally wrong or having no clue. So using IQ as a litmus test clearly doesn't help.

  • IQ is no guarantee of being "good". Many sociopaths (picking the only legible definition of good vs. not good that isn't 100% subjective) are smart or have high IQ (I'm not going to waste time researching whether high IQ and sociopathy are correllated, or independent, as it doesn't change the larger point).

  • In practice, using IQ test as proxy for "smartness" is problematic.

| improve this answer | |

The state of Louisiana tried doing something like this back during Jim Crow. In practice, tests like these are most often used to keep people from voting.

| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    Though note that those only 'implied' testing IQ. They, in fact, were merely methods of disenfranchising black voters. – user1530 Mar 8 '16 at 0:03

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .