Should Persons With Mental Disabilities Be Allowed to Vote
  • Dachshund
    52
    I currently live in England and recently I was very surprised to learn that in 2006 an Electoral Administration Act was passed which abolished the law that had not allowed people with certain mental deficiencies to vote.

    Thus, the "mentally disabled" are now able to participate in the electoral process. The term "mentally disabled" includes adults with Intellectual Deficiency Disorders (IDD) like Down Syndrome and what was referred to by psychiatrists in the past as Mental Retardation; it also includes those whose cognitive abilities are materially impaired such as persons with schizophrenia or some other form of psychotic disorder. In the UK, even persons who are detained in mental institutes are granted permission a right to temporarily leave the hospital in order to vote in person or post by proxy.

    I cannot understand why such persons should be granted the right to vote. What possible arguments could there be for extending suffrage to adults who lack a normal capacity for rational thought?

    Regards

    Dachshund
    Dachshund Options
  • Youseeff
    11
    Progressives and their 'soft' push for eugenics... next thing will be: 'should mentally retards be able to reproduce'. :groan:
    Youseeff Options
  • Cuthbert
    1.1k
    "But whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others." Jefferson. That is, equality of political rights is not contingent upon equality of ability. In the same way, people who are more competent than Dachsund or Cuthbert do not have proportionately more votes for the Government that governs us all. We are inferior to them. But we do not owe them any allegiance or priority.
    Cuthbert Options
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    people who are more competent than Dachsund or Cuthbert do not have proportionately more votes — Cuthbert

    But we know what's best for you better than you do.

    The only downside is that we probably do not care about it as much as you do, or indeed at all.
    unenlightened Options
  • Cuthbert
    1.1k
    But since the Government governs us all then it is presumed we each and all care about it for ourselves, even if not for others. If you still can't be bothered, abstention is an option in at least some countries, because voting is a right not an obligation. And if a grasp of the theory and justification of democracy were a criterion for voting rights then I would have at least three times as many votes as anyone who has posted so far on this thread. So meh.
    Cuthbert Options
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    ↪Cuthbert
    Sorry, forgot the irony alert. Here it is now:

    :love:
    unenlightened Options
  • MathematicalPhysicist
    45
    I don't understand why did we let women to vote, but then again you may call me crazy.
    MathematicalPhysicist Options
  • Baden
    16.3k
    ↪MathematicalPhysicist


    No, we will call you sexist and ban you. :hearts:
    Baden Options
  • Dachshund
    52
    ↪MathematicalPhysicist


    You aren't alone MP, Immanual Kant - the greatest of the Enlightenment era's philosophers - firmly believed that women should never be allowed to vote; basically because - (and there's no way to put this diplomatically, I'm afraid) - he felt that they were just too stupid (irrational) ! :wink: Actually quite a few great philosophers would have run foul of the "Mod Squad" and been banned from this forum for sexism if it had have been operating in their time, like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, Aristotle ... (?!) :gasp:
    Dachshund Options
  • T Clark
    13.8k
    I cannot understand why such persons should be granted the right to vote. What possible arguments could there be for extending suffrage to adults who lack a normal capacity for rational thought? — Dachshund

    This is from Wikipedia:

    The word incompetent is used to describe persons who should not undergo certain judicial processes, and also for those who lack mental capacity to make contracts, handle their financial and other personal matters such as consenting to medical treatment, etc. and need a legal guardian to handle their affairs.

    I think it would make sense to prevent someone who met this standard for incompetence from voting. Otherwise, they should be allowed to vote. As for "normal capacity for rational thought," well, that type language gets thrown around on this forum a lot meaning people who are not as enlightened as we are. You know, Republicans. Yes, irony.
    T Clark Options
  • Dachshund
    52
    ↪T Clark


    That's right, Mr Clark. There's no doubt that Donald Trump, for example, is a very "clever cookie" - the best President the US has, IMO, ever had ! What did you think of his speech today to the CPAC?! :razz: U-S-A !! U-S-A !! :up:

    Regards

    Dachshund
    Dachshund Options
  • BC
    13.5k
    ↪Dachshund
    Should Persons With Mental Disabilities Be Allowed to Vote?

    I thought it was obvious that they were voting in very large numbers. How else did Donald Trump get elected?
    BC Options
  • Banno
    24.8k
    I cannot understand why such persons should be granted the right to vote. — Dachshund

    That's arse about. Why should they not have the right to vote?
    Banno Options
  • Santanu
    27
    I cannot understand why such persons should be granted the right to vote. — Dachshund

    It depends on how one defines "mental disability" and who defines it.
    Santanu Options
  • Banno
    24.8k
    ↪Santanu
    Shall we vote on it?
    Banno Options
  • Santanu
    27
    ↪Banno

    If voting can conclude the answer, yes, we can vote. However voting by its own method only tells how many people supports a view and how many does not. Voting "does not" give a answer right or wrong.
    Santanu Options
  • Banno
    24.8k
    ↪Santanu
    I was just wondering who would get to vote... given the topic.
    Banno Options
  • Santanu
    27
    Every single human being who knows what is the aim of voting should be allowed to vote. This is not applicable to ones who does not understand the purpose of voting, they does not need anyway.

    Since it is quite difficult to filter precisely the above criteria, just go by a cut-off age number presuming the kids don't understand the purpose/ implication of voting

    Having said that, voting is only a way to find out what maximum people want, irrespective of whether it is right or wrong, good or bad.
    Santanu Options
  • Akanthinos
    1k
    I cannot understand why such persons should be granted the right to vote. What possible arguments could there be for extending suffrage to adults who lack a normal capacity for rational thought? — Dachshund

    You might want to dig deeper into your own laws before assuming that it is so simple. s73 of the Electoral Administrative Act 2006 simply abolishes an 18th century legal distinction for 'lunatics' and renders the claim of mental incapacity impotent in regards to voting capacity. Additionnally, the notes for s73 states that it makes important changes to the 1983 Commission on Mental Incapacity document, the preceding legal omnium on the matter, not that it completely invalidates it. Meaning some of its provisions in regards to legal capacity unrelated to mental acuity (like the ones in regards to the im/possibility of communication) will likely still stands. Otherwise the notes would simply mention that the 1983 document had been entirely invalidated. I'll go this far, but the 1983 Commission document is 300 pages long, and you ain't paying me for this. :joke:

    BTW, someone who has no rational capacity whatsoever will almost assuredly be under full legal curatorship. Meaning he still won't get to vote.
    Akanthinos Options
  • Pseudonym
    1.2k
    Interesting, since 16 year olds are not allowed to vote we're basically saying that a 16 year old having managed to pass standard tests in mathematics, probably multiple languages, having a grasp of our modern history and more scientific knowledge than most of the population when voting was first considered, has a potential contribution to democracy lower than someone detained in a mental institution.

    And we wonder why youth are disaffected?
    Pseudonym Options
  • Santanu
    27
    ↪Pseudonym

    So it points to what should be the basic criteria for having voting rights:
    1) No filtration irrespective of education, sex, colour, age.
    2) If it is felt that all cannot contribute, then who can? what would be the ideal filtration criteria in democracy.

    All has limitations.

    -Education: If that is the criteria, should it be more degrees/ certificates will have more voting right. If not what is the cut-off line of stage of education?
    -Sex and Colour: Keeping is out of this argument
    -Age: Simplest of all, easy to track. For some mental age can be less, but how can that be distinguised from less-educated, trouble is we do not know what is the ideal cut-off age. Hence it is easy to go by definition of adulthood in respective nation-states
    Santanu Options
  • Hanover
    12.8k
    Isn't it mental capacity that distinguishes the child from the adult and therefore limits the child's right to vote? Why wouldn't that logic similarly serve to limit a mentally limited person's right to vote?
    Hanover Options
  • fdrake
    6.5k
    People with an IQ lower than 125 shouldn't be allowed to vote. Period. They contribute nothing to society, have no awareness of what's going on around them, and can't form the most meagre of insights about what effects them.

    Everyone below an IQ of 125 should be made, by law, to give their voting rights over to a friend who has at least that IQ, and those without friends of at least 125 IQ will have their votes assigned randomly to positions. Since they're basically monkeys throwing shit at the wall anyway.
    fdrake Options
  • Perplexed
    70
    I would suggest that the appalling lack of insight into human nature demonstrated on this thread would place you firmly into the category of "deficient for voting" should such a thing exist. In fact, your attempts to devalue certain members of society indicate that the health of democracy would be better protected if you, rather than they, were prevented from voting.
    Perplexed Options
  • Akanthinos
    1k
    Isn't it mental capacity that distinguishes the child from the adult and therefore limits the child's right to vote? — Hanover

    nah, children are considered "rational" "legally" from the moment they can be expected to understand that bad = no and good = yes, and that "x is bad is an instruction to be followed, basically. Before, the standard was 7 years old, which is where the "age of reason" expression comes from. Nowadays this is much lower than this, and 4-5 years old can be found "rational" in the eyes of the court.
    Akanthinos Options
  • bert1
    2k
    Isn't it mental capacity that distinguishes the child from the adult and therefore limits the child's right to vote? — Hanover

    i don't think so. An incapacitous 35 year old is not a child.

    The UNCRPD section 12 distinguishes mental capacity from legal capacity, saying (in other words) that the lack of mental capacity shall not be grounds to remove legal capacity. So far only the Republic of Ireland is fully compliant with section 12 (in Europe anyway, not sure about elsewhere).

    Th acquisition of legal capacity is a recognition of adulthood, regardless of how well people understand the world they live in. Being non-disabled is no bar to being an ignorant vote-savaging twat in any case. I'd happily be ruled by a bunch of bipolar people.
    bert1 Options
  • charleton
    1.2k
    ↪Dachshund

    It is of vital importance that every adult feels they have a stake in society and that none are excluded for arbitrary reasons.
    And thus it should be with only in the most extreme circumstances that a person is forbidden by law.
    I see no reason why anyone would object to allowing people with 'mental disabilities' to vote.

    Any one capable of first registering, then making the effort to find the polling station, and selecting a candidate has sufficient ability to discriminate in the choice of a candidate. The chances of negative consequences occurring by the exercise of this right are near impossible. So few vote for the "Monster Raving Loony Party" that they shall never have a successful candidate.

    This is completely a non-question, as the benefits outweigh any negative effects.
    charleton Options
  • charleton
    1.2k
    I wonder if any one has the mental capacity to imagine a country that has a legal test for such a thing as mental capacity to disqualify a community of people from voting.
    The law as it was, is not enforceable in an open society. And such a law is danger to democracy.
    charleton Options
  • Janus
    16.2k
    "Should Persons With Mental Disabilities Be Allowed to Vote"

    The implication being that no one should be allowed to vote?
    Janus Options
  • Santanu
    27
    ↪fdrake

    Should every single person be screened for IQ level just before voting. A person under drug or alcohol before voting can have lower reasoning or unintended reasoning. This the person might not contribute effectively.

    How do one assess the IQ value for all persons.
    Santanu Options
  • René Descartes
    544
    [Delete] @Baden
    René Descartes Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment