The problem with letting people take them again is that the more IQ tests you do the better you get so It dosn’t mean you are better suited to do a real life task or vote for a government.

When psychologists won’t even test people again within about a year because it invalidates the result.

Peter.

We already make exams to determine a person’s intelligence in life in virtually all areas- common sense, analytical thinking, ability to memorise etc. Nobody is seriously arguing that we should not place considerable weight of judgement on the outcomes of such exams from jobs to university etc. Given we already use exams to do a great deal, I maintain that universal exams could be created (and updated on a yearly basis) to measure all-round intelligence, the results of which would accurately reflect the intelligence of the examinee in the vast majority of cases.

If people didn’t like the results, they could take the exam again after a period of time had elapsed, and try to improve their score. Much better than most other things we are already happy to use exams for, where you normally get one (or at most two) shots at it and which have a far greater overall effect on your life prospects.

And because I am proposing votes by intelligence, doesn’t mean I think I should get an enormous number of them (Although I would hope I would get an above average number).

“IQ is a universal borrometer of intelligence which has been worked out scienficially- I can’t see any problems with bias there….”

Nonsense, IQ tests have huge limitations particularly with regards to ethnic groups and educational experiences. as someone who has been married to s psychologist for almost 25 years and who did two years of it as part of my degree I can tell you that the view of many professionals is roughly this;

” IQ tests are a good indicator of who is good at IQ tests”.

Oh and is a borrometer something that measures debt…..

I am not trying to be picky, normally I wouldn’t comment on a spelling mistake, particularly as I make so many my self, but it’s just fun to see one in a comment about allocating votes by IQ.

Peter.

That would eliminate the temptation of a government to deliberately design a system that allocated votes their own supporters, but would be flexible enought to account for changes in the political status quo (if, for example, there is a large change to the mould, for example the Liberals becoming the second party again, or whatever)

Votes need not be allocated on simply knowing certain thing about certain subjects like the economy- using the argument that there is no objective definition of ‘good’ knowledge is certainly a good argument, but it still doesn’t defeat the idea. How about, for instance, simply allocating votes in proporion with IQ? IQ is a universal borrometer of intelligence which has been worked out scienficially- I can’t see any problems with bias there….

I also don’t think that people were starving in the ninteenth century because we had voting based on property qualification…If anything, the householder franchise after 1867 heralded an era of extreme economic growth and social mobility unparalled in our history. I think history’s on my side, I fear. And in any case, I not proposing to exclude anyone from the franchise- all adults will still have one vote.

Where one week we have a official crackdown on leakers and the recipients of leaks because they may be beneficial to the opponents of the government, while the next we have the government leaking the withdrawl of troops from Iraq rather than announcing in parliament and the Prime Minister making use of unconfirmed and unreliable statistics on knife crime because it benfits the very same government!

I don’t think it will help Labour’s poll rating to be viewed as inconsistent where issues of major public interest are concerned, especially as partisanship is increasingly linked in our consciousness as the primary causal factor behind the current economic mess (which looks worse by the day).

A pattern of convenient behaviour is emerging, so will the public will take kindly to convenient government supplanting good government?

Where it will have an effect is that a huge potential weakness for the Conservatives was the ability of the government to say they were out of tune with the rest of the planet. Now they can rebut that by saying “well, the German finance minister has also criticised Brown, blah, blah” it has severely weakened that attack.

It may go down well with the party faithful but it looks bloody childish from where I am sitting.Oh and get some policies, we cannot live off just abusing the government.

We need a blood good rocket up the backside or when I post agin in a few months you will all be telling me that the Labour lead wont last to the election.

Seeing as most of you are Conservatives, and I assume some work for the party,please pass on my comments to the faithful.

As James says very dated. Yes there will be the more intellectually challenged who may take this view, however the average swing voter is likely to be a little more thoughtful. Therefore I would say that among this group (swing voters) the finance minister from one of the top economies saying Gordon is talking rubbish is likely to damage Gordo’s standing, partic when he thinks he is saving the world. Apparently not all th eworld agrees. The more this spun image of Gordon breaks down, and the more hubristic and ridiculous it becomes, his standing will be further eroded and his polling percentages will be proportionately affected. At the moment the only thing that has improved his position is economics (bizarely IMO!), but this sort of thing will badly erode the one strong suit he appears to have in th eeyes of voters.