Rather than limiting who can vote, I would prefer to increase the number of voters. For example by making voting mandatory like they do in Belgium and Australia. Some may just spoil their ballot but others may actually sit down and think about it.
Schaffhausen has mandatory voting. Even with a small fine (f10 I think) it regularly generates the highest voter turnout. Vaud struggles to get 50%.
Itâs funny, at least heâs very âupfrontâ about these things.
Should have kept his EF name(s) though, people need a heads-up.
Yeah, but no. Direct democracy doesnât work this way. There are ways to educate the electorate but basically asking them to pass a âtestâ in order to be able to cast their vote is a bit anti-democratic. If politicians feel like some issues shouldnât be subjected to referenda then they shouldnât call for referenda because theyâre afraid of taking responsibility.
Which one? He had so many it was hard to keep track of them all.
There is no solution around the simple fact that a significant chunk of the population is below or well below the median IQ level.
The acceptable way would have been to force the various sides to provide checks and balances for their information campaigns. In these days of populism, there seems to be very little attention paid to facts and whether information is actually true, or even logical.
This has worked AFTER the Brexit campaign so why couldnât they have done it beforehand?
Paying for votes 
Just joking, probably an unfriendly spell checker
Pre-caffeinated⌠
No, not a test. A confirmation that people understood the issues they were voting for.
If the paperwork that comes with the voting forms is not clear enough for 95% of the population to understand then it is the government who have failed in that task.
The multiple-choice questions, or perhaps yes/no questions would be simple for everyone to understand.
If enough people got them wrong then the referendum should be cancelled and the voting paperwork re-written so it was clear enough for the majority to understand and the referendum re-done.
Maybe the questions could be completed by a random selection of the population, before the referendum, to confirm that the voting paperwork was clear.
If this is not possible then perhaps what the people have been asked to vote is to complex to be done at a referendum level.
Even in Switzerland, not all laws are passed by referendum.
Some are brushed aside by government without a thought.
Amazing thatâs what many ( right-minded ) people think of the Republican ( GOP ) Party already about itâs choice of presidential candidate, Donald Trump.
That would be approximately 50%.
Exactly and there are some seriously ill people around with high IQs. The strength of a democracy is that almost everyone gets to vote regardless of irrelevant details such as IQ.
Exactly.
The relevance is smarter people detect liars and false promised, only a benefit if one side lies less than the other
Not really, IQ measurements are not an exact science and around two thirds cluster around the median
I suggest you consider the definition of median. Itâs the point at which the values of half of the observations are below and half above.
Donât be mean.
Would you prefer a different mode?
Indeed âobservationsâ
Suppose somebody measures the IQ of one thousand people, 400 observations have an IQ value of 100. 300 have values of less than 100 and 300 values of over 100.
Do you still believe half the people fall below the median?
But your supposition is so unlikely it seems pointless to discuss it. Speaking for my mother, who administered IQ test to thousands, it was extremely rare to have someone score exactly 100.