Earning the Vote

[FrustratedFool]

1) I'm not sure modern IQ tests have that flaw.  I think, though I may be wrong, they are the best measures we have of GI for any culture.  Is there a better one?

2) That seems to be a problem with the nature of the education, not the concept of education itself.  IT also seems you are comparing a more educated person with a less educated one.  The answer isn't to throw education in the bin as a relevant metric, it's to make the education in question better.

3) If you have the option to opt out as an objector it isn't slavery.  As for evidence, I wouldn't even know where to begin to measure a 'good voter'. 

4) The issue is to be consistent and to have a suitable age.  Why do we limit some things by age?  Because we recognise that development takes time.  Marriage and voting at 16, but not alcohol, porn, driving, horror films, opting out of maths education, a credit card, or tattoos.  Doesn't seem very consistent.  And just because I can do X doesn't mean I can do Y.  Voting seems, to me, to require a degree of maturity that isn't likely to be found in most 16 year olds.

-The cultural bias in the tests is real. But as I said, that's not the only issue with them.

-I'm not discounting the value of formal education, I just don't think it applies to voting as much as you seem to think it does. 

-And if your objection is denied (which happens a lot), you go to prison. So, you've simply swapped one type of slavery for another. I suppose that if you also have the option to run away from massa on de plantation, it's not slavery either.

-So, you're more concerned about a voter's maturity than their actual calendar age. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. But age is a lousy metric to determine someone's level of maturity. How do you determine whether a 35 year old is more mature than a 16 year old? Just as a person level of education isn't necessarily indicative of their intelligence, age isn't necessarily indicative of maturity.

Boru

1)  Is there a better measure for GI?
2)  Surely that depends upon the content of the formal education?
3)  Prison for being an objector wasn't part of the statement. But I'm happy enough to remove this as a criteria for earning the vote if the other more important things can be agreed upon.
4)  Correct.  Which is not only why I prefer an older age (21 is far more likely to be mature than 16), but also why I have the combination of age + IQ + education + civic service + not in prison.  That seems a fair combination of wide factors that can increase the likelihood of someone being a mature, smart, educated, empathic person.  This is in contrast to removing all criteria and making the age as low as reasonably possible which seems to massively increase the likelihood of many voters being immature, uneducated, and easily manipulated.