If a person can live independently they should be eligible to vote but voting should not be a right, it is a privilege. A person that is dependent upon government for his sustenance is not living as an independent individual should not have a vote. That includes government employees and politicians, since they produce nothing.

Does anyone live independently, one may ask? If we require others to bring our food to market, create clothing for us to wear, build houses for our shelter, provide our education, our medical needs? Although you'd think the answer to be no, it is, yes. Why? Because there is an expectation of a mutually beneficial exchange realized through the division of labor.

One of the biggest problems of socialist programs is they mutate from being an agreed upon exchange with the socialist winding up deciding what their exchange should be without any consultation and agreement from the taxpayer. The service becomes more expensive and quality deteriorates or becomes something other than originally agreed upon. Thus public education becomes indoctrination. Public Health Insurance becomes expensive and bureaucrats develop selective care - who gets the service. Example, those on worker's compensation, injuries to professional Athletes and politicians get priority. Over time, socialist programs become increasingly costly, more selective in delivery of services and less efficient. The exchange value is distorted. The taxpayer winds up being screwed and never knows whether service for his needs will be met. Initially it looked like a real good idea. Although, even in the beginning the service for everyone was not equal. The healthy individual received nothing for his taxes but it was just healthcare insurance he was buying. The socialist likes to promote the fact that healthcare is what their taxes are buying. In fact, it is healthcare "insurance". Most of us who buy private insurance are aware how the terms of insurance are determined and that premiums have a tendency to increase while claims become increasingly restrictive. One owuld think that if you have no children and don't ever plan on having children you would not have to pay school taxes. It's the morally right thing to do though as it helps the community. Providing schools and education for the children. Looking at public education today are we getting what we expect? Parents being labeled terrorists.

Besides that government can only provide these services if there is an abundance of wealth in the economy. Eventually, they will drain that abundance and start running deficits and debt.

Anyway, getting back to voting. We should have a limited democracy, as opposed to a universal democracy. The vote should be a revocable earned privilege. You need to know the founding principles of the country, you need to be a second generation immigrant, you need to be an adult without a criminal conviction, and perhaps a couple of other things.

No. However, determining a person's exact IQ can be rather difficult.
However, I also believe (because it makes sense) that no one with less than 3 years residence and/or a Canadian citizen in our country should be allowed to vote as they've put little or nothing into our country and therefore should have no say in how our country is run or how our money is spent.

I'd settle for a sanity test over an IQ test

According to JPeterson, the US military took theofficial position years ago that they will not induct(hire) anyone with an IQ<82.

Their reasoning is that below that level the effort to train you up to snuff so that you are not a danger to others is too high.

So, what about the 10% (that was his number) of the population <82?

As to voting, well, they are human so let them. That is their right, just like free speech, owning a gun, etc.

I have long ago said that qualifying to vote should be done with the same exam that legal immigrants must pass to become citizens of the US. It requires an understanding of the unique nature of the US Constitution, which almost always results in patriotic zeal in new citizens.

Most natural born citizens of the US have no concept of what makes the Constitution unique. Most people I know have never read it, and most who have seem to have missed the main philosophy, that our Constitution protects our rights by LIMITING government; the only document in human history ever to do so.

Most people I know think government is the same everywhere, but when the population thinks so, then the Constitution no longer has the support of the people and becomes only an historical footnote.

If the educated idiots with masters degrees and doctorates got us into this mess, I am willing to let the comfortable numb people have a vote. At this point I am willing to let all the zoo animals vote.

It is kind of like The Eiger Sanction dilemma ~ how bad can it be? When we got quasi semi inmates and non-convicted felons running the country into created extinction level event.

If I'm not mistaken, voters in the early portion of American history had to be land owners, males, and natural born citizens in order to vote. I can guarantee you that if that were still the case today ... there would be NO Democrat Party; our borders would be secure; and our economy would be stronger than ever. But I also agree that retards should not be able to vote which would mean that the vast majority of them living in the inner cities and slums of American could NOT vote. I down with that!

Should've made this a poll.