-5

As the above title states, I'd like some insight into how this decision has been justified.

What justifications have been used by politicians to enable people that are not mentally capable of making an informed decision to make that decision?

Charlie
  • 3,020
  • 2
  • 17
  • 40
  • 9
    Somewhat tongue in cheek, but doesn't 50% of UK electorate feel that the other 50% have severe intellectual impairment because of "voting wrong way", and vice versa? – user4012 Dec 07 '17 at 15:21
  • @user4012 Since the UK system has multiple parties it's worse than that. It could be up to 70% of the local population who are "mad". – origimbo Dec 07 '17 at 15:24
  • @origimbo - I was going for "leave"/"remain" divide, but you are correct – user4012 Dec 07 '17 at 15:44
  • @user4012 there's a difference between having a different opinion or being ill-informed and being quite literally retarded though. Whilst liberals may (and often do) say that those who voted leave are stupid, even they cannot argue that a large amount of leave voters have severe learning difficulties. – Charlie Dec 07 '17 at 16:11
  • 6
    This question appears to be based on a faulty premise...that UK had ever proposed that mental condition be a factor for voting rights. I'm not aware that it ever was. –  Dec 07 '17 at 16:13
  • @blip Traditionally 'idiots, lunatics, convicts and peers' didn't have the right to vote. You may still lose your right to vote if detained on mental health grounds. – richardb Dec 07 '17 at 22:52
  • 1
    "What justifications have been used by politicians to enable people that are not mentally capable of making an informed decision to make that decision?" The word "enable" is the problem here. You do not need to enable any specific group to vote. You need a reason to prevent them from voting. – Thern Dec 08 '17 at 16:56
  • @Nebr you're wrong. It was illegal until recent years and hence it has been enabled – Charlie Dec 08 '17 at 20:07
  • If a one can get registered to vote, and then make it to a polling center on election day, exactly how 'not mentally capable of making an informed decision' could one possibly be? – MrWonderful Jan 22 '18 at 18:45
  • @MrWonderful their minders can assist them in both of those things – Charlie Jan 22 '18 at 18:48

3 Answers3

9

In a democracy, the (intended) point is that all citizens are represented. One's intellect should have no bearing on whether or not they are represented.

  • 2
    according to who? And how does one define "represented" as "given responsibility"? – Charlie Dec 07 '17 at 16:13
  • 3
    @Charlie according to...the definition of a democracy? As for being represented, every citizen in a democratic representative country (of which the UK is) has representation. They are allowed to vote for said representation. This is not a new concept...modern nations have been (slowly but surely) increasingly enabling voting rights to all citizens. –  Dec 07 '17 at 16:14
  • Do the people incarcerated for reasons of criminal insanity get to vote? (e.g. Hinckley)? If not, then that proves your answer wrong. – user4012 Dec 07 '17 at 16:17
  • Also, ALL democracies have limited franchise. Obvious example, nobody lets children under 18 (16/17 depending on country) vote. Usually, the argument being... wait for it... mental capacity lacking in children – user4012 Dec 07 '17 at 16:18
  • @blip how do you define representation? How is my three year olds cousin represented? If she is not allowed to vote, does that mean we don't live in a democracy? – Charlie Dec 07 '17 at 16:19
  • 6
    @user4012 not at all...they aren't denied the right to vote due to intellect. They are denied the right to vote due to their crime. Ie, it wasn't the 'insanity' that cause their loss of rights...it was the 'criminal' part. –  Dec 07 '17 at 16:19
  • 3
    @Charlie you appear to be debating for the sake of debating. Age is an accepted criteria for voting. I'm not arguing for or against that, but that's not what you are asking about. –  Dec 07 '17 at 16:20
  • @blip - considering that the exact verdict wording is "*NOT* guilty by the reason of insanity", you can't claim them to be criminal as they are found innocent by the court of law. – user4012 Dec 07 '17 at 16:24
  • @user4012 we could debate the semantics of all of that, sure. Point is though, that's a verdict arrived at through the legal system. Which is very different than what the OP is getting at. –  Dec 07 '17 at 16:28
5

This is impossible to implement.

You would need to test and evaluate everyone to be able to decide who is "intellectually impaired".

There would be infinite battle between psychiatrist and other mental health specialists.

On what basis you would draw the line ?

Should we disallow "functionally illiterate" adult who cannot read or understand a political program ?

You open a can of worm that is impossible to close.

Max
  • 1,854
  • 10
  • 19
  • doesn't answer the question. What has been used to justify the decision? Please add sources – Charlie Dec 07 '17 at 16:08
  • 1
    @Charlie: it does justify the answer; why are you being so authoritarian? – Mozibur Ullah Dec 07 '17 at 16:45
  • 1
    @CGCampbell: Sure; nevertheless the point made in the answer is still valid; I think its very poor to ask for sources when the OP himself shows no research effort or insight in his question. – Mozibur Ullah Dec 07 '17 at 18:15
  • I'm not saying the point isn't valid, as I didn't think of the practical implications and in that regard the answer is good, but my question is how is it justified by politicians? Have any politicians in the UK publicly debated this topic and detailed their reasons? – Charlie Dec 07 '17 at 18:48
  • I don't agree that it would be impossible to implement. For instance, most of the population is evaluated for eyesight, hearing, and basic literacy (as well as the ability to parallel park :-)) when they want to get a driver's licence. – jamesqf Dec 07 '17 at 19:14
  • @jamesqf: getting a driver's licence isn't regarded as a basic right, so the state is free to place restrictions on it. – Steve Melnikoff Dec 08 '17 at 10:07
  • @MoziburUllah: on the contrary: people try hard on SE sites to provide good answers, even when the questions are less than ideal. – Steve Melnikoff Dec 08 '17 at 10:09
  • 2
    @Charlie: I'd argue that the key point is, as Max mentions, where you draw the line. Age, citizenship, and incarcerated status are (relatively) black and white conditions. Mental competency is far less clear-cut, and can change - in both directions - over time. Someone might be "OK" today, and not "OK" tomorrow. How is the system supposed to deal with that? And how do we define "OK", and who gets to make that determination? It's a sensitive and difficult subject, and hence contentious - and I'd suggest that that is why there's little political will to change things. – Steve Melnikoff Dec 08 '17 at 10:13
  • @SteveMelnikoff I agree that there are mental health conditions that are temporary and some that are minor, but there are people with severe disorders who are allowed to vote. They will never be mentally competent enough to make a proper vote, such as sever intellectual difficulties. You draw the line where it is sensible and consistent. If we do not let young children vote based on lack of intellectual development, why should adults with limited intellectual development be different? Its more of a matter of consistency. – Charlie Dec 08 '17 at 11:50
  • @Steve Melnikoff: You misunderstand. I'm not arguing about the legality or morality of it, just saying that it would be technically feasible to test people for "intellectual impairments" as a voting qualification, in the same way that they're tested for various impairments when applying for a driver's licence. – jamesqf Dec 08 '17 at 21:44
3

According to an article whose abstract is on the National Center for Biotechnology Information and which was originally published in Schizophrenia Bulletin under the title Schizophrenia: Nazi attempts to eradicate schizophrenia:

Although the Nazi genocide of Jews during World War II is well known, the concurrent Nazi genocide of psychiatric patients is much less widely known. An attempt was made to estimate the number of individuals with schizophrenia who were sterilized and murdered by the Nazis and to assess the effect on the subsequent prevalence and incidence of this disease. It is estimated that between 220 000 and 269 500 individuals with schizophrenia were sterilized or killed.

and

This total represents between 73% and 100% of all individuals with schizophrenia living in Germany between 1939 and 1945. Postwar studies of the prevalence of schizophrenia in Germany reported low rates, as expected. However, postwar rates of the incidence of schizophrenia in Germany were unexpectedly high. The Nazi genocide of psychiatric patients was the greatest criminal act in the history of psychiatry. It was also based on what are now known to be erroneous genetic theories and had no apparent long-term effect on the subsequent incidence of schizophrenia.

And see also the United States Holocaust Memorial

Wartime, Adolf Hitler suggested, "was the best time for the elimination of the incurably ill." Many Germans did not want to be reminded of individuals who did not measure up to their concept of a "master race." The physically and mentally handicapped were viewed as "useless" to society, a threat to Aryan genetic purity, and, ultimately, unworthy of life ... Despite public protests in 1941, the Nazi leadership continued this program in secret throughout the war. About 200,000 handicapped people were murdered between 1940 and 1945

Not only were they 'unworthy of life' but also unworthy of voting. Bringing these questions back onto the table, given the history associated with them, seems insensitive at best, and at worst - ominous.

(I realise it doesn't answer your question in the terms posited; but then again the question doesn't show much research or insight...)

Mozibur Ullah
  • 8,726
  • 1
  • 26
  • 45
  • What is the purpose in pasting that? It doesn't have anything to do with the question. – Charlie Dec 07 '17 at 18:50
  • @charlie:try reading the last sentence. – Mozibur Ullah Dec 07 '17 at 18:51
  • so you wrote something about the genocide of mentally ill people knowing it doesn't have anything to do with the question. I can't stop you, but it's a waste of my time and your time. – Charlie Dec 07 '17 at 18:53
  • @charlie: have a look again - are you satisfied now? – Mozibur Ullah Dec 07 '17 at 19:03
  • @Charlie: I've some more detail; but isn't your question 'a waste of my time and your time'? – Mozibur Ullah Dec 07 '17 at 19:16
  • Don’t cite the NCBI, cite the journal article and the journal name. – Golden Cuy Dec 07 '17 at 19:42
  • @MoziburUllah it's strange you seem to construe the right to vote with the right to life, and you are the one suggesting "ominous" connotations, not me, so perhaps its you with the issues. Do you agree with all children being able to vote? – Charlie Dec 07 '17 at 19:54
  • 1
    @Charlie: It's not at all strange. And, you're right I'm suggesting these ominous connotations; it seems associated with authoritarian tendencies...do you have authoritarian tendencies? – Mozibur Ullah Dec 07 '17 at 20:09
  • @MoziburUllah "it seems associated with authoritarian tendencies". What does? Not allowing people who are incapable of making informed decisions to make decisions of national and perhaps intentional importance? What else is authoritarian to you? Not letting 6 year olds vote? I'm not taking about minor disabilities, there are people out there with conditions that mean they literally can't function within society any have the same intellectual capacity as a child. If you wouldn't let 6 year olds vote, why would you let an adult with the brain of a six year old vote? – Charlie Dec 07 '17 at 20:12
  • 5
    @Charlie: I imagine those were exactly the kind of arguments made by Nazis. Try doing some research on it, and see what you find; keep us posted... – Mozibur Ullah Dec 07 '17 at 20:17
  • @MoziburAllah I suppose by virtue of them being Nazis nothing they ever did was sensible, by your logic. You still didn't answer. Would you allow a six year old to vote? – Charlie Dec 07 '17 at 20:19
  • 1
    @Charlie: Because its a silly question and silly questions are best ignored; and you're ignoring everything that I've said or engaging with it; you didn't answer my question about whether you had authoritarian tendencies; am I to take your silence on this as you have? In which case its no surprise you think that Nazis are on the whole ok. – Mozibur Ullah Dec 07 '17 at 21:33
  • @Charlie: also its Mozibur Ullah not Mozibur Allah... – Mozibur Ullah Dec 07 '17 at 21:33
  • @MoziburUllah On the issue of voting, you may call me an authoritarian, but not across the board. My views on drug legalisation or on the libertarian side, as are my views on parenting. Saying that, I am not the kind of person that will be intimidated or shy away from an argument by someone writing "Nazi". It's a non-argument. – Charlie Dec 07 '17 at 23:08