Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does Stupidity Support or Degrade Democracy?

Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 1:46:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Some people say we should prohibit stupid people from having the right to vote.

The problem is stupidity needs to be defined. The appropriate degree of intelligence required to make a decision is subjective.

Therefore, they're tolerated to participate, and these stupid people can be manipulated into doing others' bidding. This is especially when manipulative people use stupid people to exploit smart people by forcing smart people to go along with programs while stupid people get to boss them around. Manipulative people run the whole show, so they're happy overall while claiming they're governing society for the good of the people.

Does stupidity support or degrade democracy?
EgoDuctor
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 2:45:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is a great difference between the ability to solve abstract problems and education.
I'd argue that a well educated person, even if he is not the brightest, can be able to make a good and sound choice when he goes into the voting booth.
If such a regulation were to be implemented, which I oppose, it'd be reasonable to set the focus on education rather than intelligence.

It'd degrade democracy as it would create a group of people who must obey the decisions of those deemed worthy of voicing their opinions.
Giving the power to elect the governing force of a country to a selected group of people is never a good idea.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 4:31:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that every ballot should be write-in. If you don't know the name of the person for whom you are voting, then you have no business voting in that election. It also helps to erode the two-party system's death grip on the system while ensuring that voters are at least minimally informed.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
EgoDuctor
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 6:03:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 4:31:19 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I think that every ballot should be write-in. If you don't know the name of the person for whom you are voting, then you have no business voting in that election. It also helps to erode the two-party system's death grip on the system while ensuring that voters are at least minimally informed.

That would discriminate against politicians whose names are hard to spell. :P
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 8:03:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 6:03:31 PM, EgoDuctor wrote:
At 3/16/2013 4:31:19 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I think that every ballot should be write-in. If you don't know the name of the person for whom you are voting, then you have no business voting in that election. It also helps to erode the two-party system's death grip on the system while ensuring that voters are at least minimally informed.

That would discriminate against politicians whose names are hard to spell. :P

It's better than discriminating against every person who hasn't been nominated by one of the two parties.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
EgoDuctor
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 9:28:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Now you are discriminating against anyone who is not from the USA by assuming that this debate is about that particular country. :D

I don't think any regulations to ensure the quality of votes is high are justified as that would essentially limit the rights of many people who'd fall through those tests.

A better attempt would be a technocratic one. That would ensure the quality of those in high public positions.
Here in Germany we have finance ministers exchanging positions with interior ministers randomly and stuff like that.
It's rather awkward.

Unfortunately there is no degree that would ensure that the head of state is qualified for that office. Not that I am aware of anyway.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 9:36:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 9:28:26 PM, EgoDuctor wrote:
Now you are discriminating against anyone who is not from the USA by assuming that this debate is about that particular country. :D

I don't think any regulations to ensure the quality of votes is high are justified as that would essentially limit the rights of many people who'd fall through those tests.

A better attempt would be a technocratic one. That would ensure the quality of those in high public positions.
Here in Germany we have finance ministers exchanging positions with interior ministers randomly and stuff like that.
It's rather awkward.

Unfortunately there is no degree that would ensure that the head of state is qualified for that office. Not that I am aware of anyway.

You think that's bad? A member of our House Committee on Science, Space and Technology believes that the earth is 6,000 years old.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 12:48:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think the point of democracy is to have smart decisions made. It's to prevent the injustice of exploitation caused by minority rule.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 1:01:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 12:48:54 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't think the point of democracy is to have smart decisions made. It's to prevent the injustice of exploitation caused by minority rule.

The problem is that democracy is just as prone to exploitation of minority factions by majority faction as oligarchy is to the exploitation of majorities by minorities. There is an eventually violent dissolution implicit in both systems. Democracy is useful in the same way that every other form of government is useful: as a check against the other forms in a republic which employs a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. Any of the forms alone degenerate into corrupted counterparts via Machiavelli's classical cyclical progression of governance.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 1:09:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 1:46:22 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Some people say we should prohibit stupid people from having the right to vote.

The problem is stupidity needs to be defined. The appropriate degree of intelligence required to make a decision is subjective.

Therefore, they're tolerated to participate, and these stupid people can be manipulated into doing others' bidding. This is especially when manipulative people use stupid people to exploit smart people by forcing smart people to go along with programs while stupid people get to boss them around. Manipulative people run the whole show, so they're happy overall while claiming they're governing society for the good of the people.

Does stupidity support or degrade democracy?

Stupidity does for democracy what it does for DDO:

The affliction of the many is the bane of the few which has the salutary effect of propels the great catastrophe on.

lol
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 1:10:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 1:09:50 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/16/2013 1:46:22 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Some people say we should prohibit stupid people from having the right to vote.

The problem is stupidity needs to be defined. The appropriate degree of intelligence required to make a decision is subjective.

Therefore, they're tolerated to participate, and these stupid people can be manipulated into doing others' bidding. This is especially when manipulative people use stupid people to exploit smart people by forcing smart people to go along with programs while stupid people get to boss them around. Manipulative people run the whole show, so they're happy overall while claiming they're governing society for the good of the people.

Does stupidity support or degrade democracy?

Stupidity does for democracy what it does for DDO:

The affliction of the many is the bane of the few which has the salutary effect of propelling the great catastrophe on.

lol

edit for grammar.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 10:33:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Stupidity and tyranny is the backbone of any democracy. Without it it could not exist. That is why the founders of America went out of their way to avoid making America a democracy.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 10:52:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You are right, stupidity is subjective. In practice, stupidity is often use to refer to idea you don't believe in and therefore almost everything in the world will be labeled "stupid" by someone else in this world.

While it is certainly good if we can excluded those who possessed idea generally considered "stupid" from administration. It is impossible to convince general public that certain idea is stupid, unless you have a prove, that is to implement it and see its failure. That is to say it is impossible to consider any idea stupid, even the most stupid theory will simply be considered a reality if it is proved to be a success. Therefore I believe that it is impossible to exclude stupid people from voting or managing country, because it is impossible to prove stupidity until one is given a chance. Claim of stupidity without actual tryout is simply assumption, a propaganda use by one side to discredit the other.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 2:12:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 2:16:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 4:31:19 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I think that every ballot should be write-in. If you don't know the name of the person for whom you are voting, then you have no business voting in that election. It also helps to erode the two-party system's death grip on the system while ensuring that voters are at least minimally informed.

This is the 2nd best idea I've ever heard around assigning people to elected positions. The best one is still random draw.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 2:34:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Attaching a standard and required level of intelligence, or literacy and education to the right to vote is an old ploy and workaround for effectively disenfranchising and visiting racial injustice upon certain elements of our population. That is, it's hardly a novel, and hardly a legitimate idea.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 2:40:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 1:01:16 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/17/2013 12:48:54 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't think the point of democracy is to have smart decisions made. It's to prevent the injustice of exploitation caused by minority rule.

The problem is that democracy is just as prone to exploitation of minority factions by majority faction as oligarchy is to the exploitation of majorities by minorities. There is an eventually violent dissolution implicit in both systems. Democracy is useful in the same way that every other form of government is useful: as a check against the other forms in a republic which employs a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. Any of the forms alone degenerate into corrupted counterparts via Machiavelli's classical cyclical progression of governance.

The problem is that video transmissions are the most powerful tool for propaganda ever created and the human brain doesn't know what real most of the time.

I did this in like 2 minutes - http://i.imgur.com...

But I bet at least 60% of people won't immediately know what I added to the photo.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 2:42:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 2:34:07 PM, charleslb wrote:
Attaching a standard and required level of intelligence, or literacy and education to the right to vote is an old ploy and workaround for effectively disenfranchising and visiting racial injustice upon certain elements of our population. That is, it's hardly a novel, and hardly a legitimate idea.

I don't think knowing the person's name for whom you want to vote is a test of intelligence. It's a test of familiarity.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 3:06:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 2:42:13 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 2:34:07 PM, charleslb wrote:
Attaching a standard and required level of intelligence, or literacy and education to the right to vote is an old ploy and workaround for effectively disenfranchising and visiting racial injustice upon certain elements of our population. That is, it's hardly a novel, and hardly a legitimate idea.

I don't think knowing the person's name for whom you want to vote is a test of intelligence. It's a test of familiarity.

My comments weren't exactly in reference to the proposal that voters be required to write in the name of their candidate. Rather, they we're in reference to the general idea of attaching an education requirement to the right to be a member of the electorate. Setting such requirements is just another roundabout, dishonest way of eroding whatever modicum of real equality and democracy has managed to come into existence under our socioeconomic system. Ergo it's not something that I support and this was the only position that my comments were meant to express. As for my position on the idea of allowing voters to write in the name of their candidate, sure, I'd be in favor of that, as long as voters aren't penalized for incorrect spelling or poor penmanship.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 3:15:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sloppy typo correction, "... Rather, they we're in reference to ..." should of course read: "... Rather, they were in reference to ..."
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 3:45:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 3:06:03 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/17/2013 2:42:13 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 2:34:07 PM, charleslb wrote:
Attaching a standard and required level of intelligence, or literacy and education to the right to vote is an old ploy and workaround for effectively disenfranchising and visiting racial injustice upon certain elements of our population. That is, it's hardly a novel, and hardly a legitimate idea.

I don't think knowing the person's name for whom you want to vote is a test of intelligence. It's a test of familiarity.

My comments weren't exactly in reference to the proposal that voters be required to write in the name of their candidate. Rather, they we're in reference to the general idea of attaching an education requirement to the right to be a member of the electorate. Setting such requirements is just another roundabout, dishonest way of eroding whatever modicum of real equality and democracy has managed to come into existence under our socioeconomic system. Ergo it's not something that I support and this was the only position that my comments were meant to express. As for my position on the idea of allowing voters to write in the name of their candidate, sure, I'd be in favor of that, as long as voters aren't penalized for incorrect spelling or poor penmanship.

And, it does imply literacy, which is an intelligence test of sorts, but so does being able to read the candidates name, so really, it's not much more.

You need to be intelligent to vote (and, spelling and penmanship has little to do with intelligence...or, that's what I keep telling myself being the poor speller and having the horrible penmanship that I do.).

Obviously, I don't want to put forth any proposal which limits anyone's participation in the civic process (there are few enough who participate already), but for a democracy, and even a democratic republic to work, you need the electorate to be intelligent and civic minded.

If we've ever had this, we've lost it.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 11:41:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 1:46:22 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Some people say we should prohibit stupid people from having the right to vote.

No one should have the right to vote. Populations should be controlled, they should not control government.

The problem is stupidity needs to be defined. The appropriate degree of intelligence required to make a decision is subjective.

It would be more prudent to test everyone in the population, and from the basis of their scores, determine if they should be permitted to reproduce. All with IQ's below 120 should rightfully be sterilized. In a generation, the problem of stupidity and incompetence would solve itself.

Therefore, they're tolerated to participate, and these stupid people can be manipulated into doing others' bidding. This is especially when manipulative people use stupid people to exploit smart people by forcing smart people to go along with programs while stupid people get to boss them around. Manipulative people run the whole show, so they're happy overall while claiming they're governing society for the good of the people.

Presupposing human equality is a failed experiment in human thought. Are humans biologically equal? Sure, more or less. Are human's existentially, morally, intellectually, or otherwise equal in their skills, abilities, interests or potential? Hardly. These distinctions order humans on a natural hierarchy which some recognize, but others scorn. These differences are the natural basis for the order of society. Granted, in the past race, ethnicity or religion have been used -and to order society on this grounding is idiotic. Rather, human potentiality and intellect ought to be maximized.

Does stupidity support or degrade democracy?

People of inferior intelligence limit the potential of humanity as a whole. The collective success or failure of the experiment manifest in human existence will be determined by the progress of the lowest societal echelon -and where that line falls is something that rightfully ought to be controlled by the government.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 3:59:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A question for anyone who says that voters should have to pass some sort of test before being allowed to vote:

The very basic premise of this idea is that voting decisions should be "smart" or "educated". So suppose we use an IQ test to determine who can vote, and we set the IQ standard at 80. Since "smart" = better voting, and 90 is smarter then 80, wouldn't it make more sense to make 90 the standard? And since 100 is better then 90, wouldn't it make more sense to make 100 the standard? etc...

So how do you draw the line while staying consistent with the premise of your own argument?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 4:49:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 3:59:47 AM, Double_R wrote:
A question for anyone who says that voters should have to pass some sort of test before being allowed to vote:

The very basic premise of this idea is that voting decisions should be "smart" or "educated". So suppose we use an IQ test to determine who can vote, and we set the IQ standard at 80. Since "smart" = better voting, and 90 is smarter then 80, wouldn't it make more sense to make 90 the standard? And since 100 is better then 90, wouldn't it make more sense to make 100 the standard? etc...

So how do you draw the line while staying consistent with the premise of your own argument?

Weighted scoring based on a test of civics (the test that naturalized citizens took to become citizens would suffice...)

No one is excluded from voting, but some votes carry more weight than others...like the karma systems on internet voting sites.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 11:07:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 1:46:22 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Some people say we should prohibit stupid people from having the right to vote.

The problem is stupidity needs to be defined. The appropriate degree of intelligence required to make a decision is subjective.

Therefore, they're tolerated to participate, and these stupid people can be manipulated into doing others' bidding. This is especially when manipulative people use stupid people to exploit smart people by forcing smart people to go along with programs while stupid people get to boss them around. Manipulative people run the whole show, so they're happy overall while claiming they're governing society for the good of the people.

Does stupidity support or degrade democracy?

Democracy is majority rule, as opposed to a republic which is restrained by rule of law. This holds true with all forms of democracies; direct or Representative.

If you have a democracy, than the there is no intellectual restraints, because the majority are unintelligent. A Geniocracy would be a form of aristocracy, where the minority wield sovereignty over the state, based on a strict criteria (such as an IQ).

Ignorance is a far greater threat to public policy than stupidity. A t least in my opinion. There are some pretty intelligent people out there, who are more ignorant than the average Joe. Intelligence limits the capacity for knowledge, but being intelligent does not make your knowledgeable. Society has a major problem with ignorance; society in general has a far greater capacity for knowledge than is currently being met. The average Joe is as knowledgeable as a retard, and most intelligent people are as knowledgeable as an average joe, or worse.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 11:23:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 2:34:07 PM, charleslb wrote:
Attaching a standard and required level of intelligence, or literacy and education to the right to vote is an old ploy and workaround for effectively disenfranchising and visiting racial injustice upon certain elements of our population. That is, it's hardly a novel, and hardly a legitimate idea.

Genetic fallacy? I don't support such a thing of course but yer still judging the content of the proposition by the contingent factors surrounding its origin.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 3:06:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 3:59:47 AM, Double_R wrote:
A question for anyone who says that voters should have to pass some sort of test before being allowed to vote:

The very basic premise of this idea is that voting decisions should be "smart" or "educated". So suppose we use an IQ test to determine who can vote, and we set the IQ standard at 80. Since "smart" = better voting, and 90 is smarter then 80, wouldn't it make more sense to make 90 the standard? And since 100 is better then 90, wouldn't it make more sense to make 100 the standard? etc...

So how do you draw the line while staying consistent with the premise of your own argument?

"Smart" =/= "better voting"

Intelligence only implies a higher capacity to make well reasoned decisions. In an ideal world, though, none other than the ruling class would be given the right to vote. (As in Plato's Republic.)
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 11:09:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 3:06:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/18/2013 3:59:47 AM, Double_R wrote:
A question for anyone who says that voters should have to pass some sort of test before being allowed to vote:

The very basic premise of this idea is that voting decisions should be "smart" or "educated". So suppose we use an IQ test to determine who can vote, and we set the IQ standard at 80. Since "smart" = better voting, and 90 is smarter then 80, wouldn't it make more sense to make 90 the standard? And since 100 is better then 90, wouldn't it make more sense to make 100 the standard? etc...

So how do you draw the line while staying consistent with the premise of your own argument?

"Smart" =/= "better voting"

Notice the word "or".

And no it doesn't, that is my point.