Great law! Proof of minimum IQ to run for office!

[The Bubba Effect]

Maybe throw in a requirement that you own a at least a certain amount of real estate to vote too.

 

[Leo]

obummer had a house provided by a criminal that was in trouble with the feds and extra land purchased with money that was illegally recieved from Iran. That should count for something.

 

[Leo]

I always thought that a person should be a self supporting tax payer to show that you actually have vested interest in society. No votes from wards of the state. I'll bet there would be different leadership if only the productive voted.

 

[eric001]

Instead of legislating some arbitrary IQ score for politicians that has no bearing on how well they might or might not figure out how to do the job if elected, why not replace the IQ test with a Constitution test? Testing to see if the politicians know and understand their state and US Constitutions would make WAY more sense to me. Hell, while I'm at it, let's say a score of 90% [overall]* with a 100% on the Bill of Rights is required to pass. And let's get rid of the stipulation that it's just for a potential governor. That's too ultra-specific. Let's make this a requirement for ALL governors and legislators, both state and federal level, including presidents and vice presidents as well.

What a concept--having a government run by people who actually have a clue about the powers and restrictions on those powers of the government they're running. Obviously, this is about as likely as Congress voting themselves a term limit, eliminating their lifetime healthcare and retirements, et cetera, et cetera (heaven forbid that Congress abide by the laws they pass for all the rest of us!!!) all in one single bill. My money is still on the snowball in hell scenario. Since the only people who could possibly enact these changes to improve government are the very people who would be adversely affected by those changes, we all know none of this could possibly happen.





*edited to fix minor grammar issue...

 

[buckstopshere]

I'm sure this is just a ploy to show how much smarter politicians are than the average Joe to further reinforce how much we need them to make decisions for us ignent folks.

Back to patricians and plebeians. There is nothing new under the sun.

If you like podcasts, Dan Carlin's Common Sense latest podcast covers this topic as a thought exercise of who should be able to vote.

 

[smokingman]

Terrible law.

Basing the holding of a public office on any form of test is a bad idea.Who designs the test? Who gets to determine the questions?

You can call it a basic IQ test,but the reality is testing is never unbiased.What if party "A" writes the test(behind closed doors of course)and knows all the "correct" answers and gives them to their party members running for office while all of party "b" candidates some how fail the test.

Terrible law and I hope it is ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Alamo]

The BS test is the one we EACH give by using our sense of discernment,....

I guess I was too subtle or obtuse or something. The article linked in the OP is a spoof, it is The Borowitz Report, which features a satirical "report." IOW, the subject of the article had a high BS factor to begin with - there is no such bill in the Texas Legislature, which doesn't meet until next year anyway. The alleged Texas legislators quoted in the article are imaginary characters made up to mock the Tea Party and conservatives in general.

It was also stunningly effective troll bait.

 

[edporch]

Originally Posted by edporch The BS test is the one we EACH give by using our sense of discernment,....

I guess I was too subtle or obtuse or something. The article linked in the OP is a spoof, it is The Borowitz Report, which features a satirical "report." IOW, the subject of the article had a high BS factor to begin with - there is no such bill in the Texas Legislature, which doesn't meet until next year anyway. The alleged Texas legislators quoted in the article are imaginary characters made up to mock the Tea Party and conservatives in general.

It was also stunningly effective troll bait.

Yes, this article was satire.
But with some of the elitists we have who consider themselves "more equal" than the rest of us, it's not too far fetched laws like this that narrow the political playing field could be attempted.

For example, people who think the government should follow the US Constitution for example, MUST be "mentally inefficient" and need to be barred from public office!

We already have cases of political parties changing the rules in midstream to keep the "wrong" candidates from being nominated.
So this mindset already has reared it's head.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

I had an idea back when I was a teenager, that everyone should have one vote, then get an additional one for every, say, $1000 or $10000 of taxes paid. This would give more weight to the people with a vested interest, as well as encourage payment of taxes for those interested in voting. Win win. The producers could vote harder than the parasites.

 

[smokingman]

I had an idea back when I was a teenager, that everyone should have one vote, then get an additional one for every, say, $1000 or $10000 of taxes paid. This would give more weight to the people with a vested interest, as well as encourage payment of taxes for those interested in voting. Win win. The producers could vote harder than the parasites.

Also a terrible idea.
The top 0.00000001 percent are worth as much as the bottom 50 percent combined. The top 1 percent, meanwhile, control 48% of the wealth in the USA.
Would share holders get tax credit for the taxes corporations paid?
If not the likes of Warren Buffet who earned $1.00 last year would have just one vote.

Anyone with enough money under your standard could make sure they had a very large tax bill to "buy" elections.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Worth is not the point. I'm worth a lot but I have almost no income. If people with large incomes wanted more effect on the vote, it would motivate them to pay their taxes rather than avoiding them. It would be a choice. The bottom 50% are very likely to vote for stupid reasons anyway, so canceling them could be nothing but a good thing. They wouldn't be denied a vote, but if they wanted it to really count, they could bloody well get productive and pay their share. Maybe along the way, they'd learn enough to vote for less stupid reasons. This wasn't an idle speculation; I took it to some sophistication. I was kind of a weird teenager.