Mentally Challenged People Voting

[shinbits]

It's against the Constitution to deny mentally challenged or mentally retarded people the right to vote. I agree with this, for people with slight MR or other mental conditions. But what about those with more severe cases?

I work in the mental health field. Every presidential election year, I see family members with legal guardianship over a resident with MR take them to vote. In my opinion, it's like giving that guardian an extra vote.

I understand why it's unconstitutional to make literacy a requirement to vote; but shouldn't voters at least have the capacity to understand what they're doing?

In short, is it unethical to deny people below a certain IQ the right to vote?
Is it ethical to use such a person to vote for who you want, since they can't decide for themselves?

 

[Cabal]

Pretty much the main flaw of democracy right there.

"The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

 

[The Penitent Man]

If said mentally-challenged person understands the parties, the platforms, and the issues ... why not?

You cannot vote if you are insane but you can get elected!

 

[trunks2k]

If said mentally-challenged person understands the parties, the platforms, and the issues ... why not?

But then the problem becomes, how do you decide who can and cannot understand the parties, platforms and issues? Where would you draw the line? And why stop at mentally challenged people? Why not extend it to people who are simply ignorant?

 

[The Penitent Man]

If they are *NOT* ignorant of the parties, platforms, and issues, mentally challenged people should be given a vote. But usually it's the "normal" people who go to the polls.

 

[Mystman]

I'm personally in favor of a system in which every voter should show that he understands the issues, has actually thought about his vote, etc. This can be done by a "quiz" of sorts, with different questions on different difficulty levels, the questions being written by the party itself and the opposing parties, and moderated for fairness/correctness by the judiciary. The more questions you get right, the "stronger" your vote counts.

So a person who will blindly vote vote for the person having the most tv-commercials will not get a vote.

The guy who only knows that he wants less government interference and that party X provides that, will get 1 vote.

The guy who read party programmes, and understands the advantages and disadvantages of particular "key" policies will get 2 votes.

The guy who read and understood every single Bill oppossed/proposed by the various parties over the last 4 years will get 3 votes.

(something like that is never going to get implemented, but still)

---

Disregarding that, I'd say that the mentally handicapped have just as much right to vote as the "voluntarily stupid".

I personally would never encourage a mentally handicapped person to vote, and would certainly not push my political views on him/her (just as I don't push my political views on anyone else, except here on CF ). If he/she wants to vote, I might explain the various party platforms in the most neutral terms possible...

But in a way it's weird. We don't allow children to vote, presumably because they don't have the wisdom to make an informed decision about who to vote for. Yet while a 17 year old is barred from voting, a mentally handicapped 18 year old with the mental age of a 5 year old is allowed to vote.

eh..

 

[shinbits]

But in a way it's weird. We don't allow children to vote, presumably because they don't have the wisdom to make an informed decision about who to vote for. Yet while a 17 year old is barred from voting, a mentally handicapped 18 year old with the mental age of a 5 year old is allowed to vote.
..

You bring up a good point.

 

[Mystman]

You bring up a good point.

I can see the reason though. Age is unambigious, and usually a reasonable indication of wisdom.

The amount of mentally handicapped people voting is pretty small - they don't have a large outcome on the election. Any method of preventing the extremely stupid from voting is going to add an additional layer to the democratic system. (i.e. the people who are going to decide which individual is allowed to vote and which one isn't).

That extra layer will hurt the "democratic principle" more than those few "nonsensical" votes ever will.

 

[chingchang]

It's against the Constitution to deny mentally challenged or mentally retarded people the right to vote. I agree with this, for people with slight MR or other mental conditions. But what about those with more severe cases?

I work in the mental health field. Every presidential election year, I see family members with legal guardianship over a resident with MR take them to vote. In my opinion, it's like giving that guardian an extra vote.

I understand why it's unconstitutional to make literacy a requirement to vote; but shouldn't voters at least have the capacity to understand what they're doing?

In short, is it unethical to deny people below a certain IQ the right to vote?
Is it ethical to use such a person to vote for who you want, since they can't decide for themselves?

I don't know if you've noticed...but the Constitution went out the door many years ago. Bush and Obama have had NO respect for the Constitution...and our Congress-folk let them get away with it. So...what I think you are proposing would fly in current times. Not an IQ minimum...but at least a literacy minimum.

CC

 

[Witchy Bee]

There are a lot of people out there with complete mental capacity who don't vote, and many people who do who, quite frankly, shouldn't. There is no ideal way of doing things, and there will always be little exceptions made which will lead to more flaws.

However, technically, yes mentally challenged people have just as much of a right to vote as anyone else. At the time the constitution was written women, racial minorities, the poor, all didn't have the right to vote. Therefore I don't put much stock into what it says on the subject. It tends to contradict itself.

 

[Autumnleaf]

They should have the right to vote so long as Sponge Bob Square Pants, picture next to the name on the ballot, is one of the choices for them to vote for.

 

[Fantine]

In the past, things like literacy tests and poll taxes were used to deny racial minorities the vote.

But I do think that if anyone who needs assistance in using or interpreting the voting machine goes to vote that only a neutral poll worker should accompany that person to the machine, not a friend or relative, and that the neutral poll worker should assist the person in making his/her selections.

Chances are that people who really didn't know the issues would be divided about 50/50 in most cases.

 

[shinbits]

In the past, things like literacy tests and poll taxes were used to deny racial minorities the vote.

But I do think that if anyone who needs assistance in using or interpreting the voting machine goes to vote that only a neutral poll worker should accompany that person to the machine, not a friend or relative, and that the neutral poll worker should assist the person in making his/her selections.

Chances are that people who really didn't know the issues would be divided about 50/50 in most cases.

That would bring up trust issues. There's no way to determine if someone's truly "neutral". There's no way that would be legal.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It's against the Constitution to deny mentally challenged or mentally retarded people the right to vote. I agree with this, for people with slight MR or other mental conditions. But what about those with more severe cases?

If their mentality is like that of a child (or even a 17 year old), then it is no different denying them the right to vote as denying said child (or 17 year old) the right to vote.

 

[lawtonfogle]

If said mentally-challenged person understands the parties, the platforms, and the issues ... why not?

If a 13 year old understands the parties, the platforms, and the issues, should they be allowed to vote? Granted, that 13 year old will probably know more than the average person who can vote, at least about politics.

 

[lawtonfogle]

But then the problem becomes, how do you decide who can and cannot understand the parties, platforms and issues? Where would you draw the line? And why stop at mentally challenged people? Why not extend it to people who are simply ignorant?

But people have no problem saying those under 18 cannot vote. So what ever criteria they used there, just apply it elsewhere.

 

[Ave Maria]

I don't really know where I stand on this issue. On the one hand, I see how allowing severely mentally retarded people to vote would just be giving their guardians an extra vote but on the other hand, I see that people who suffer from mild mental retardation can and sometimes do understand the political parties and their candidates positions. So yeah, I am not really sure where I stand on this tricky (to say the least) issue.