To the extent though the rule does mean that there should be no legal protections or limitations upon those who lack the ability to comprehend what they're engaging in, I am encouraged by the overwhelming rejection of the rule by the various European countries. — Hanover

The main rationale for denying to mentally incapacitated individuals the right to represent themselves legally, or administratively, seems to be to protect them from themselves. They need help, and hence, some custodian such as a family member of some public agency is tasked with representing their interests. This doesn't appear to me to apply to the right to vote since a vote cast for the 'wrong' candidate is unlikely to harm the individual as much as denying them this fundamental civic right can potentially harm them morally should they express the wish to exercise this right. (Also, since it's a right that they are unlikely to demand to exercise anyway, there is no downside to granting them universally).

This doesn't appear to me to apply to the right to vote since a vote cast for the 'wrong' candidate is unlikely to harm the individual as much as denying them this fundamental civic right can potentially harm them morally should they express the wish to exercise this right. (Also, since it's a right that they are unlikely to demand to exercise anyway, there is no downside to granting them universally). — Pierre-Normand

I think logical consistency would demand that if we believe the mentally handicapped should be protected from the decisions they impose on themselves, society should be protected from the decisions they attempt to impose on society. If a mentally handicapped person decides in favor of spending his entire inheritance on a single scoop of ice cream, society should not hold him to it. By the same token, if the mentally handicapped person decides in favor of (i.e. casts his ballot) spending all of society's tax dollars on a single scoop of ice cream, society should be afforded the same protections against him that he received for himself.

I think logical consistency would demand that if we believe the mentally handicapped should be protected from the decisions they impose on themselves, society should be protected from the decisions they attempt to impose on society. If a mentally handicapped person decides in favor of spending his entire inheritance on a single scoop of ice cream, society should not hold him to it. By the same token, if the mentally handicapped person decides in favor of (i.e. casts his ballot) spending all of society's tax dollars on a single scoop of ice cream, society should be afforded the same protections against him that he received for himself. — Hanover

The difference is that him deciding (and being allowed) to spend his inheritance on a scoop of ice cream will lead to him spending his inheritance on a scoop of ice cream, but him deciding (and being allowed to) vote in favour of spending all of society's tax dollars on a scoop of ice cream won't lead to all of society's tax dollars being spent on a scoop of ice cream (unless he's the only voter), and so it's a false analogy.

So there really needs to be a strong case to show that allowing the mentally ill to vote will actually (or at least with a reasonable possibility) lead to a bad outcome.

Besides, if we actually consider a real-life example of a ballot, the choice is usually going to be between a member of one party or the member of another, rather than some silly choice on what to spend all of society's money on. For the most part, the available options are reasonable (and even when they're not, you get sane people voting for the Monster Raving Loony Party, too).

The difference is that him deciding (and being allowed) to spend his inheritance on a scoop of ice cream will lead to him spending his inheritance on a scoop of ice cream, but him deciding (and being allowed to) vote in favour of spending all of society's tax dollars on a scoop of ice cream won't lead to all of society's tax dollars being spent on a scoop of ice cream, so it's a false analogy. — Michael

The distinction you point out is only due to the relative limited power of a single vote in a large democracy, resting upon the notion that a certain percentage of the stupid votes can be absorbed by a generally not stupid population. You can change the scenario to a district where there is a large home of mentally handicapped people who are swayed to vote by someone whose intent is to raid the public funds for his own pet project or you can place them all on a jury to decide someone's guilt. That is to say, your distinction is just an irrelevant detail that can be resolved to make the point that protecting the public from those who are clearly without the capacity to make their own decisions is good public policy, even if it violates some idealistic standard you're trying to impose without concern for practical impact.

That is to say, your distinction is just an irrelevant detail that can be resolved to make the point that protecting the public from those who are clearly without the capacity to make their own decisions is good public policy, even if it violates some idealistic standard you're trying to impose without concern for practical impact. — Hanover

I am considering the practical impact (see my edit). Your hypothetical example is an absurdity. In a real life case, the options are going to be the sort of things that sane people also vote for.

You can change the scenario to a district where there is a large home of mentally handicapped people who are swayed to vote by someone whose intent is to raid the public funds for his own pet project or you can place them all on a jury to decide someone's guilt. — Hanover

Is there likely to be a district where most voters suffer from a severe mental illness that leaves them incapable of rational choice?

or you can place them all on a jury to decide someone's guilt. — Hanover

One can allow them the right to vote but not allow them to serve on a jury.

So there really needs to be a strong case to show that allowing the mentally ill to vote will actually (or at least with a reasonable possibility) lead to a bad outcome.

Besides, if we actually consider a real-life example of a ballot, the choice is usually going to be between a member of one party or the member of another, rather than some silly choice on what to spend all of society's money on. For the most part, the available options are reasonable (and even when they're not, you get sane people voting for the Monster Raving Loony Party, too). — Michael

This is a votes don't really matter argument. I'm just not willing to concede that. The choice needn't be silly. It could be very important and ideological. One sides wants to raise taxes to provide better public transportation, the other doesn't. It looks like it's going to go the way of higher taxes, so the Republicans get some vans and go to the hospital caring for the mentally handicapped and round them up, scare them into voting their way, and it swings the vote.

Your whole objection is based upon the idea that votes don't matter. Come up with your own example where they do, and in that instance, are you happy with the deciding votes being cast by those who don't know what they're doing?

It looks like it's going to go the way of higher taxes, so the Republicans get some vans and go to the hospital caring for the mentally handicapped and round them up, scare them into voting their way, and it swings the vote. — Hanover

Coercing someone to vote a certain way is a crime. And also can be done to sane victims.

Coercion is assumed when it comes to those lacking capacity, even if the persuasion is in good faith.

I've no idea how a recognition of rationality would result in a minor being treated like he was the age of majority. — Hanover

Being rational in the eyes of the court has nothing to do with being an adult or voting legally.

In french-canadian Civil court, determining if a child is rational or not is important because if the child causes damages, is rational (so he could understand an instruction as to not cause damages) and it's demonstrated that the parents failed to instruct the child properly, they could be held entirely responsible for the damages, even if they otherwise acted diligently.

If the child is not rational, the court must otherwise determine if the damage was caused by the child through a lack of care of the parent. There is no point in asking a child if his parents told him not to play with matches when its evident to everyone that the child could not understand what an instruction is anyway.

That's what rationality is in the eyes of the court here, and again the origin of the 7 years old as 'the age of reason'. Nothing to do with being an adult or voting.

That's what rationality is in the eyes of the court here, and again the origin of the 7 years old as 'the age of reason'. Nothing to do with being an adult or voting. — Akanthinos

But that has nothing to do with a child's liability or a child being held responsible for anything. That has to do with when to impose vicarious liability on the parents. The parents are being held liable for the acts of their child, which clearly indicates under the law that the child has limited duties to the public and is being considered a ward of his parents.

And so what I said still holds true: the recognition of rationality on the part of a minor does not result in his being treated like he was the age of majority. Otherwise, the child would be being sued directly, but in this case, he's not being sued at all. His parents are being sued.

I'd also point out that vicarious liability laws for the acts of their minor children vary considerably by jurisdiction. In Georgia, there are different standards for negligent versus malicious acts, and they do not reflect the law as exists in Canada. Regardless, I don't see where anything you've said of Canadian law affects our discussion here.

But that has nothing to do with a child's liability or a child being held responsible for anything. — Hanover

Never said it did. You brought that into question. Rationality is not the basis of why we get to vote as of 18, or why we are considered adults. We are all (hopefully) rational a good decade before that.

The parents are being held liable for the acts of their child, which clearly indicates under the law that the child has limited duties to the public and is being considered a ward of his parents. — Hanover

It's also a bit more than that. If the child had been found rational, then the damages can be imposed on the parents until the child is of age, and then they can sue their child to get the damages reimbursed and the debt transfered. If the child was not rational, but the parents did not act diligently, they will be stuck with the damages forever.

Regardless, I don't see where anything you've said of Canadian law affects our discussion here. — Hanover

Well, for starters, the discussion relates to a U.K law. As such, the Common Law basis is identical in both jurisdictions, and for the longest time, the highest instances were the same (the Chamber of Lords). Technically, the opinion of a georgian lawyer would be as if not more otiose than that of a canadian one.

Never said it did. You brought that into question. Rationality is not the basis of why we get to vote as of 18, or why we are considered adults. We are all (hopefully) rational a good decade before that. — Akanthinos

You brought up the rationality criteria, but it appears we both agree to its irrelevance.

Well, for starters, the discussion relates to a U.K law. As such, the Common Law basis is identical in both jurisdictions, and for the longest time, the highest instances were the same (the Chamber of Lords). Technically, the opinion of a georgian lawyer would be as if not more otiose than that of a canadian one. — Akanthinos

You miss the point. I wasn't saying it was irrelevant because Canada is an irrelevant backwater. I was saying it was irrelevant because the law has nothing to do with imposing liability on minors. In fact, everything you've said indicates that minors are a very different class altogether, offering support for why they ought be denied a right to vote and the like.

Oops, my mistake..! Irony blindness is only one step short of a sense of humour bypass and I don't want one of those.

If we're going to count like that, I'd pretty much be a dictator. I'm all for it.

Only problem being that one of us would have to assassinate the other. Hmm. Perhaps there's something to be said for one-person-one-vote after all.

On an entirely unrelated note (again), the Dutch laws don't care for the rationality of the child. Up to and including 13 years of age and with respect to civil law, parents are liable for everything a child does but not any failure to act on behalf of a child.

At ages 14 and 15, parents would be liable unless they can prove they met their duty of care. In that case, only the child would be independently liable but a judge's ability to mitigate damages would probably prevent awarding (the entirety) of damages. A child can now be liable for a failure to act as well.

From ages 16 and up, a child is liable on his own unless the parents failed to act or acted in such a way that was tortious as well. Again, mitigation probably prevents award of all damages where only the child would be held liable.

Finally, most everyone in the Netherlands has a liability insurance policy. If someone is insured for a certain act or failure to act, mitigation isn't possible. So on the basis of uninsured circumstances a person suffering damages caused by a child might have a problem recouping his losses but in reality this is mostly taken care of through insurance.

These are hard, incontrovertible facts. IQ tests DO NOT measure the ability to do IQ tests. Full Stop. — Dachshund

If they cannot measure the ability to do the test; what chance has it got of measuring intelligence. LOL!
IQ tests are sexist, ethnocentric and only measure specific areas of intelligence.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html

https://www.livestrong.com/article/127284-disadvantages-iq-tests/

https://revisesociology.com/2017/08/15/why-iq-tests-may-not-measure-intelligence/

Any consideration of applying IQ testing as some sort of rubric to qualify a person to Vote is absurd in the extreme.
The only qualification has to be the ability to register, and choose.

Vote for Richard Potato!!!!

The only qualification has to be the ability to register, and choose. — charleton

I expect a five year old could register and choose. I think you're missing the point here. Some kind of test of intellect is being applied in deciding who can votes, it's just that at the moment it's an entirely arbitrary one based on age. I think we could do better than that.

Age is not entirely arbitrary as you imply with your comment.
Age of consent, although a blunt instrument means that a a five year old cannot legally choose.

Banning a person from voting due to failing a test is impractical, open to abuse and would only allow further restriction to follow, by changes to the test.

For example the IQ test is limited by several factors.
The previous experience and education of the person tested
His degree of familiarity with the subject matter of the test
His motivation or desire to achieve a good score, in the appropriate time frame.
His rapport with the tester
his knowledge of the language in which the test is conducted. This includes skills at basic literacy and numeracy.
his physical health and well-being.
Cultural and ethnic preconception also skew the results.

Since the number of people with mental disabilities is minor the existing qualifications such as motivation, effort to register, and to vote and choose is enough to deter those with severe problems, and the process of candidate selection precludes ridiculous choices.
Even where ridiculous candidates are on the ballot paper they have little chance of winning. The Monster Raving Loony Party has never achieved 3% in any election.

https://www.omrlp.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party

Vote for Richard Potato!!!! — charleton

Richard Potato-Head?

I don't understand your argument here. You're saying that age is not entirely arbitrary, but no-one is suggesting that IQ tests are entirely arbitrary either, just that they are far from perfect, moderately arbitrary, we might say.

So what's your argument that the 'moderately arbitrary' age method is better than the 'moderately arbitrary' IQ test method?

AKA
Dick Tater!!

So what's your argument that the 'moderately arbitrary' age method is better than the 'moderately arbitrary' IQ test method? — Pseudonym

I'm not saying that. What I would suggest is that even the mentally ill have political interests, and their voice is as valid as any one else.
Passing a test with all its problems is not a valid way to disenfranchise people.
Such tests would discriminate by ethnicity and education. I could not accept that.

I'm not saying that. What I would suggest is that even the mentally ill have political interests, and their voice is as valid as any one else. — charleton

As is the case with the vast majority of 16 year olds. Who are nonetheless disenfranchised.

Passing a test with all its problems is not a valid way to disenfranchise people. — charleton

And being a certain age is?

I'm not arguing here in favour of IQ testing, I'm arguing against the way in which such a suggestion is being vehemently argued against, whilst the equally arbitrary, and grossly unfair age limit is dismissed as fine with a wave of the hand.

As is the case with the vast majority of 16 year olds. Who are nonetheless disenfranchised. — Pseudonym

I'd agree that we need to extend the vote to 16years too. I assume that you too have an age limit in mind though? One that is not completely arbitrary?
There is a key difference between age and mental capacity which makes your analogy false. Age is wholly a linear spectrum where we have a clear case of growing capability. The same cannot be said of "mental disabilities"

For my money anyone with enough volition to register, take the voting card to the booth and make a choice is enough. I imagine that there are some that are capable of doing this but would not make a wise choice; or a choice of value to society or democracy - but since the criteria are subjective I do not think it would be practical or wise to weed out this tiny number. And who would decide those criteria.

"Mental disability" covers a huge and diverse field, making it impossible to compare with age.
Stroke victims alone feature a massive range of diverse abilities. Down's syndrome are a significant group in society and I would not want them to be disbarred from participation.
Mental Health services is a hot political topic; underfunded with patchy provision throughout the western world. The idea that you would give insult to (maybe) millions of people to prevent them voting is horrific.

Intellectual Deficiency Disorders (IDD) like Down Syndrome and what was referred to by psychiatrists in the past as Mental Retardation; — Dachshund

I suggest you spend an afternoon with a few people with Down's and try to tell them they are not allowed to vote. I think you might surprise yourself.
The treatment of Down's people has ben transformed in my lifetime. Previously they were dismissed as retarded and locked away. Revisions in care have transformed lives.

You can change the scenario to a district where there is a large home of mentally handicapped people who are swayed to vote by someone whose intent is to raid the public funds for his own pet project or you can place them all on a jury to decide someone's guilt. — Hanover

If the scenario is such that there are more number of "mentally handicapped" person than "mentally healthy" people, the definition of mental health will required to be altered. It may be that the what you are thinking of being mentally healthy is actually mentally handicapped for most.

As per definition of democracy it will go by what most people thinks. It does not matter whether it is "good or bad", "right or wrong".

If the scenario is such that there are more number of "mentally handicapped" person than "mentally healthy" people, the definition of mental health will required to be altered. It may be that the what you are thinking of being mentally healthy is actually mentally handicapped for most. — Santanu

I'm not talking about a pandemic of mental retardation sweeping the countryside to the point where we've lost sight of our baseline of what constitutes normal intelligence so that the new normal is a dramatically reduced state of intelligence. I'm talking about District 1 having a mental hospital housing a large number of intellectually challenged people and those people being permitted to vote and alter the outcome of an election. While I can appreciate that "normal" is relative, we fortunately will still have enough people from outside that hospital that can remind us of what normal intelligence looks like.

As per definition of democracy it will go by what most people thinks. It does not matter whether it is "good or bad", "right or wrong". — Santanu

Unless the democracy places limitations upon what the public can decide, as in a constitutional democracy, like exists in the US.

I suggest you spend an afternoon with a few people with Down's and try to tell them they are not allowed to vote. I think you might surprise yourself. — charleton

As to the question of whether someone with Down's Syndrome can vote, it varies by state (for a full breakdown: https://www.866ourvote.org/newsroom/publications/body/0049.pdf)

Generally, any one found mentally incompetent cannot vote, but whether that applies to those with Down's Syndrome appears to vary.