Should People with Profound Mental Retardation be Allowed to Vote?

[Masquerouge]

Not very many '******** people' are ID'd unless they apply for a service that requires them to prove that they're ********. Are you suggesting that these services then mail the gov't a list of clients, to have them taken off of the voter's list?

I believe that it's usually know before they're adults that they're ********. They have undergone a lot of medical testings at that point. They're probably even in specialized institutions.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

There should be an Occam's Razor for legislation. The simplest of solutions to a problem is also probably the most fair. If you disallow mentally ******** people to vote you must come up with elaborate systems to categorize people based on intelligence and have court systems to deal with disenfranchising and reinfranchising voters. Or you could just let everyone vote. The requirement to be age 18 is a simple one because you are either 18 or not. There is no subjectivity about age.

Anyway this whole debate is pointless as the number of ******** voters are not large enough or polarized enough to have a significant affect on the outcome of elections.

 

[Tboy]

Let them vote. Unless everyone in the entire world can agree on the definition of a profound mental retardation that impairs judgement to such an extent as to not be able to fairly judge candidates, that should be the way it should be.

To take the example of Down's syndrome: some people with this disorder live fairly normal lives, with jobs, pensions and sometimes even partners and children. Yet others are totally reliant on other people. Where do you draw the line? Answer: you can't. Nothing is black and white.
The same goes for Autism. That covers a wide range of disorders, from those such as Asperger's, which only midly affect judgement (and some would argue not even in a bad way, though this is debatable), to disorders which are so severe that the sufferer loses the ability to speak. Where do you draw the line?

Also, remember that someone would have to set guidelines on who is and who is not allowed to vote. That could be manipulated by some people with unscrupulous motives, and who wants to take that risk?

 

[MobBoss]

"Close elections" being the motivation for reducing voting rights seems to be not reasonable.

I wasnt using it as motivation, merely to point out that your assumption that their vote doesnt count is false in itself.

Criminals and ******** people aren't responsible for close elections, a crummy choice between politicians leads to close elections

(unless we get the fabled event where there are two good politicians running ...)

Those do happen on occasion. However, I never said they were 'responsible' but merely point out that indeed their votes can make the difference in some instances.

 

[Zelig]

BTW if you want to be PC its called mentally disabled

And if you want to be scientifically correct, it's called mental retardation.

Bottom line, if they are cognizant enough to live on their own with a minimum of supervision then sure they should vote. But if they are utterly dependent upon someone to help them out 24/7 and dont really understand such things, then no.

Pretty much the same thoughts for me. To be consistent, I could see people under 18 being allowed to vote as well.

 

[Ayatollah So]

They should have a "special election" where they can "vote" and get stickers and stuff but that doesn't actually mean anything and that nobody cares about.

The powers-that-be will come and take Fifty away now. He's hitting a little too close to the truth (where's that damn tinfoil-hat smiley?)

 

[Shylock]

I suppose, though the whole process seems rather involved for them.

 

[Stewbert 08]

Yes, because it is difficult to draw the line between who is and who isn't.

No way dude, they already drew that line, I forget what it was called...

 

[rhawn]

Most people that are classified as mentally ******** and recieve funding by the state are classified as being incompentent for making judgements for themselves. The people that are classified as such go through a long testing process with qualified mental health professionals, assisted by their guardians and/or their service co-ordinatores (state or private insitution) and are ultimately ruled by a judge based on all evidence provided by their guardians and/or service co-ordinatores whether or not they are competetent to make decisions by themselves. Considering that voting is a right given to competent individuals to make decisions based on a majority vote on the common good of all people, it goes to say that people under DMR(Department of Mental Retardation) and DMH(Department of Mental Health) that are declared leagally incompetent of important life decisions of a judge would not be able to competently vote in a general election.

 

[Lotus49]

Underneath that CATASTROPHICALLY, DEVESTATINGLY PROFOUND, SEVERE... mental retardation, there could be... a political genius! -Just trying to break out! You just never know. Now, HOW could you silence that?? How, I ask you!?

 

[Brighteye]

Though, it's true that I have a civil law perception of jurisdiction which is rather different from the common law system in the US.

I don't see what difference that makes. You've found the logical solution, which seems to imply a common law background.