Why do you think that EI is interesting and what motivates your desire to weight? And there are various implementations of democratic systems but they aren't all equally democratic, reducing the weight of someones vote on some arbitrary criteria isn't democratic.

Unless the creation of weight makes it more likely that those that care for their country more and are more informed about very important things (but basic, still nothing complex that relates to education differences) that the state also sends them at home if necessary or by default, have a slightly higher influence in the election outcome.

What if a person that cares for their community and is unprivileged is sad about it and wants change and now they have a chance to matter more than someone settled and careless that doesnt have a worry in the world what idiot gets elected. Why do you think those that are in areas that the system has not treated properly will not grab this chance to matter more now as they should since the others dont for them apparently!

How stupid indeed it is to have polls that decide in advance how people will vote for example because it is trendy not because they were informed about the issues.

And it is democracy now what we have that uses the media so asymmetrically and so superficially creating an idiocracy.

No not having to vote ensures only those that are suitably motivated to vote vote if other people care more they can do more, they can campaign for candidates or contribute in some other way.

Also the objective here is that eventually the vast majority of citizens score so high on these simple awareness questions, that by the way carry some incentive to do (so you win win), that we end up having true democracy as originally intended by people that care for their country enough to know basic things and therefore prove harder to manipulate superficially. All should be like that. It is not democracy if the population can be manipulated using its own ignorance against it.

Of course you can contribute in other ways too with activism but just imagine how more you contribute by knowing what you vote for and voting properly plus the incentives plus the ability to make a difference vs the others that are loaded and dont care as much for social changes and improvements etc.

Are you sure the weaker parts of the population cant use it to their benefit if the tests are reasonable easy to have and carry some meaningful positive incentives also? The more you care for your community the more you will know about it. And if you dont there will be campaigns to help you realize that awareness.

In any case this is impossible to do here in US as it is. The idea will be hated and painted horribly from all because it clearly undermines the monster on both parties enough and the population will eat with passion for democracy (whatever that is now) their arguments. There is no doubt about that. Other more important problems exist than that which produce non democratic outcomes effectively while the people are under the illusion its a free world.

It can be done in some scientific society model and have the option also to be aborted by vote of the population if they dont like it or re-introduced later as they change their minds.

The ultimate goals of scientific society clearly also involve a true democracy in the end where all are so elevated and their leaders are so capable that they count the same finally in all that matters to render themselves happy at a fundamental minimal but sufficient to sustain level of happiness. You cannot have that if the citizen doesnt care for the state and the state doesnt care back creating a true bond of progress.

The solution is not some Ayn Rand no or minimal government world that becomes jungle of the strong and unethical or generates a revolution. The solution is a great state system that finally works for once scientifically designed and updated using technology to secure the steady elevation of the quality of life of people (through strong education for all, proper distribution of resources, functions, work and investments in productive cooperative and competitive processes that make the system more efficient) and a state system which doesnt crash the individual and their desires to still be able to change the state positively and be free to disagree with it, compete with it in private sector and even exit it and re-enter later.

Every democracy has rules, for example my democracy grants a franchise to vote that I was born with, by it's rules.

It fails a basic test of my intelligence to consider needing a compulsion to use something that is one's own and has been from birth.

The birth standard also hedges against narrow, exclusionary interests that can be learn from through history.

The birth standard also matches a pattern with the beginning principle of my democracy, We the people.

Birth is about as common a "we" denominator as humans can get. Easy to grasp and self-evident to know.

It's not exactly a more perfect union of "we", while any exclusive group takes authority and sets extra and exclusive conditions on our franchise to vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnin...3Kruger_effect

There's a difference between gaining power and the methodology to wit, and the ideal of governing properly.

One governs properly when the purpose of the state is the progressive improvement of the individual. This means that the individual's freedoms are not gainsaid nor are they within the ownership of the state.

Consequentially, as the Rand man said, the economic aspect of the culture should be released from the governance of the state and of course the governance of the state is disassociated from economics.

The state itself insures the well being of the individual and his particular rights, not by imprimatur but by worthy comprehension of the individual through understanding that leads to compassion.

Likewise the third aspect , or the cultural sphere, consisting of education, religion and science is disassociated from the state and economics which in our present state takes the economic structures from knowledge and understanding.

Each man comes to the realization that what he produces is important for all but this cannot be legislated.

This is an ideal state consisting of three movements of the cultural, political and economics spheres ; not a ;pie in the sky for ideals are the goals of the human being in the realm of the individual; worthy goals to which each man can subscribe.

Democracy is consequential to the hegemony of the individual "I" which was not so apparent in past history written and not written . If the individual is not considered or waylaid in some form, then democracy and mankind will will fall into a destructive state of abject egoistical impulses.

I think Malthus spoke of the battle of ego against ego or "war of all against all" but was based upon some such counting of human souls with respect to available food. Anthropsophically speaking, the future of man is this "war of all against all" but this does not imply that each will take part in this distressed state of man for this is related to the evolution of the physical man whereas the evolution of the soul is not so affixed.

AW, whatever you want to believe you will according to the very effect you are describing that secures your superiority in identifying other people's inferiority.

Come on now. Shouldn't we be done with the simplistic arguments and other poster's credibility assault in these threads? Is it harder to offer instead confident personal counterarguments without the slightest insult? Is this the democratic process in action here? How to ridicule other people and score points in the board? But of course politicians taught you this not scientists.

Here in California they have voting on tons of propositions and damn it to hell if i ever have a clue what each one says with enough clarity to be worth voting one way or another without some work done to see what they say.

I do not vote because i am not a US citizen yet if ever but i sure would be very terrorized to know people myself included are flipping coins to decide or go by party lines because this sure as hell is not democracy. I also have seen funny videos by Leno before about how well informed regular citizens are on basic things.

Big bloody deal if those that are clueless about where France or Nigeria are or what is the deficit of the country or what is the impact of global warming or the various levels of government and how they function basically, etc, take your pick, what makes someone voting informed, or in particular regarding local propositions a clean understanding of what they are voting more or less, score 0.5 or never take the test and have 0.5 default and the ones that do well get a score 1 in some system that can secure the integrity of voting and secrecy.

As i said there are many more issues to solve first before getting there if ever needed and also most importantly scoring on the candidates themselves so that losers, unstable characters and charlatans can never become presidents because they are cool to have a beer with or throw insults to your "enemies" or look arrogantly cool on TV or that career politicians cannot railroad a country for decades producing legislative work, division and stalling that is a disaster, simply because they have powerful friends and financial backing all while they are completely clueless on basic scientific facts that relate to the things they work on.

Enjoy your democracy. Have confidence its even worse where i come from so maybe i have had enough on 2 continents lol.

The guy asked for a different system. I gave an example that at least doesnt discriminate based on their wealth, education level or IQ, but based on how much they care to know a few things about their world in matters they vote for.

What a disaster it would be if those equipped better to have an opinion actually had a 2 to 1 weight edge all while it would be entirely easy for all that cared a bit to get the same weight. And what a disaster to score the career politicians out of the ponzi scheme they are playing with a superpower's future.

LOL -- This is the logical equivalent to the "Nuh-uh" defense.

I'm just making an observation about an observation. Whatever inadequacies you feel as a result of that are your own business.

There is at least one category of voter that should be identified and reduced. Namely those who would fully agree that they voted, or would have voted, differently than they themselves would now vote given the extra information that they have now obtained. That information might be about government workings, individual candidates , or how to not be taken in by fallacious arguments.

Put another way suppose that there was a test that eliminated only those voters who, upon getting more info were GLAD that they were eliminated because they realize that if they weren't, they would have helped to elect the opposite of whom or what they now realize they actually wanted. Such a test would be a good thing.

I have perhaps whimsically pondered the notion that perhaps a person with low emotional intelligence should have less say in his/her own economic future - for their own good as well as mine.

Are we agreed that children should not be allowed to decide their own meals at dinner time? There's only so many pizzas and burgers and confectionery that one should eat. Of course children should have some input into the process (and the occasional treat), but not as much as a parent.

So in theory at least, and in some circumstances, a weighted vote might provide a better outcome for all. Whether that might be true in a political/democratic sense and what form that weighting might take - well, that's the point for discussion.

For most rubrics based on elite characteristics the election outcomes (as in who is elected) would be somewhat different but the political outcomes, the policies and their execution, would be mostly unchanged.

So if you took IQ, that would correlate with education levels. The educated class is the most deeply indoctrinated in society. They are the ones who create the farce we call elections and formulate the policy which has little resemblance to majority preferences. Giving them more direct control would simply lessen their burden in brainwashing the masses. Given that they are successful in brainwashing the masses, the most sensible prediction is that the political outcomes would be the same.

Recognizing the limits of emotional paternalism is one of those lesson I have learned from exploring emotional intelligence. So to require a paternalistic emotional test for emotional intelligence would possibly fail a test of emotional intelligence based on that perspective.

Really the premise that emotions exist to be tested and ranked comparatively is one I question as a subjective experiencer of emotions. Suddenly somebody else thinks they are charge of your emotions? Doesn't take much smarts to dismiss that.

So the government shouldn't protect us from companies polluting our air or water or intervene in anything stupid that interferes with the quality of our collective lives, so as to not interfere with economic activity or individual freedoms?
Shouldn't the government fund the science behind say, eradicating polio? And going back to your first point - What good is a vaccine when individuals are not forced to take it?

see above

I'd like to continue on for with the separation of the three spheres of the community there will be crossover , perforce, but the active tone of each sphere will respond in kind .The organizing of the spheres is consequential to the center, the heart, the governing body acting in the best interests of the individual but the truth's within are most likely be sourced from the educational or scientific sphere to which the government may address.

I don't think its easy, nor is it rigid , for the "ideal" is sought as a goal in which the idea of "truth" is in a dynamic movement of expansion. What I'm saying here is that we may believe that science can present a "fixed truth" but we will find that the idea of "a truth" is quite expansive and the original "truth" has more legs and nuances that in fact can change our perception of reality.

I don't think I've got it here but if I can present it better I will in the future. Our intellect demands "dogma" but negates the contrary. Each man can balance the dogmatic and its opposite the ever ongoing expansive thinking and in this the reality is appreciated.

Firstly you need to explain what weighting votes is does, what motivates, what is weighting votes solving. Then you make the case for a method of weighting. Merely saying better outcomes isn't really enough you need to demonstrate how low EI voters voting impacts voting outcomes and how weighting them will change this.

What is the purpose of this thread, how we are suppose to find Obama, Sanders, and Clinton as qualified and Trump as unqualified? Has anyone ever considered that Obama, Clinton, and Sanders might be morons.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of..._of_government

This idea seems more like a Oligarchy and will end in failure. You could require that only people over 60 have the right to vote.

I am perfectly happy to weight the votes of voters who only exists in your head to 0.

Lol @ people advocating that the dumbs shouldn't get to vote, while fig-leafing* their autocratic affinities by pretending they're okay with the not as dumbs voting. Like, at worst what you want is a council of Prometheans un-exploitively nashing* their way to maximum socioeconomic utility, and of course they eagerly fantasize about deferring all application of justice to whatever super AI that turns out to be smarter than humans. /thread although dereds is doing admirable work.

* two new verbs I made

Voting is like one of the least impactful things people with low emotional intelligence or whatever could do to have a say in their economic future, or yours for that matter. What you want to do is tell them how to live not just how to vote or not vote, whimsically I mean.

Do you think Trump would still have a chance?

The proper response should have been " Finding those people who would have changed heir vote if they knew more would entail a process that would also punish the uniformed who wouldn't change their vote." But to say that none of these possible vote changers exist is so ridiculous that it makes me think you misunderstood me.

IQ is not a measure of emotional intelligence.

Elitism isn't the same as wealth

You could also argue that artichokes are the best of all the vegetables.

If you would like to make an argument, you should probably make that argument instead of merely stating that someone could make that argument.

The "intelligence of crowds theory" has nothing to do with whether a crowd will come up with the same answer as a subset of that crowd.

Again, elitism isn't the same as wealth and no one at all mentioned eugenics other than you.

I don't know but reducing certain candidates chances by restricting the weight of voters is taking a wrecking ball to crack a nut.

Introduce me to them.