In the begin, when people voted, it was only land owners, people with skin in the game. Each time the voting pool got expanded, it got dumbed down. However, in the past that was not that detrimental because those with low IQ did not have the motivation to actually show up and vote. With campaigned collecting of mail in votes this is not true. Others are collecting votes for the less motivated/intellectually inferior. The less intelligence vote is being counted. All demographics show that less intelligent people are breeding at a faster rate than intelligent people. What is the value of having less intelligent people determine the form of government we have? Dumb it down for Democracy.
Careful what you (insinuate that you) wish for, Sunshine. Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html "The notion that liberals are smarter than conservatives is familiar to anyone who has spent time on a college campus. The College Democrats are said to be ugly, smug and intellectual; the College Republicans, pretty, belligerent and dumb. There's enough truth in both stereotypes that the vast majority of college students opt not to join either club. But are liberals actually smarter? A libertarian (and, as such, nonpartisan) researcher, Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Political Science, has just written a paper that is set to be published in March by the journal Social Psychology Quarterly. The paper investigates not only whether conservatives are dumber than liberals but also why that might be so. The short answer: Kanazawa's paper shows that more-intelligent people are more likely to say they are liberal. They are also less likely to say they go to religious services. These aren't entirely new findings; last year, for example, a British team found that kids with higher intelligence scores were more likely to grow into adults who vote for Liberal Democrats, even after the researchers controlled for socioeconomics. What's new in Kanazawa's paper is a provocative theory about why intelligence might correlate with liberalism. He argues that smarter people are more willing to espouse "evolutionarily novel" values — that is, values that did not exist in our ancestral environment, including weird ideas about, say, helping genetically unrelated strangers (liberalism, as Kanazawa defines it), which never would have occurred to us back when we had to hunt to feed our own clan and our only real technology was fire. Kanazawa offers this view of how such novel values sprang up in our ancestors: Imagine you are a caveman (if it helps, you are wearing a loincloth and have never shaved). Lightning strikes a tree near your cave, and fire threatens. What do you do? Natural selection would have favored the smart specimen who could quickly conceive answers to such a problem (or other rare catastrophes like sudden drought or flood), even if — or maybe especially if — those answers were unusual ones that few others in your tribe could generate. So, the theory goes, genes for intelligence got wrapped up with genes for unnatural thinking. It's an elegant theory, but based on Kanazawa's own evidence, I'm not sure he's right. In his paper, Kanazawa begins by noting, accurately, that psychologists don't have a good understanding of why people embrace the values they do. Many kids share their parents' values, but at the same time many adolescents define themselves in opposition to what their parents believe. We know that most people firm up their values when they are in their 20s, but some people experience conversions to new religions, new political parties, new artistic tastes and even new cuisines after middle age. As Kanazawa notes, this multiplicity of views — a multiplicity you find within both cultures and individuals — is one reason economists have largely abandoned the study of values with a single Latin phrase, De gustibus non est disputandum: there's no accounting for taste. Kanazawa doesn't disagree, but he believes scientists can account for whether people like new tastes or old, radical tastes or Establishment ones. He points out that there's a strong correlation between liberalism and openness to new kinds of experiences. But openness to new experience isn't necessarily intelligent (cocaine is fun; accidental cocaine overdose is not). So are liberals smarter? Kanazawa quotes from two surveys that support the hypothesis that liberals are more intelligent. One is the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which is often called Add Health. The other is the General Social Survey (GSS). The Add Health study shows that the mean IQ of adolescents who identify themselves as "very liberal" is 106, compared with a mean IQ of 95 for those calling themselves "very conservative." The Add Health study is huge — more than 20,000 kids — and this difference is highly statistically significant. But self-identification is often misleading; do kids really know what it means to be liberal? The GSS data are instructive here: Kanazawa found that more-intelligent GSS respondents (as measured by a quick but highly reliable synonym test) were less likely to agree that the government has a responsibility to reduce income and wealth differences. In other words, intelligent people might like to portray themselves as liberal. But in the end, they know that it's good to be the king. The jury may be out on whether conservatives are less intelligent than liberals, but there's evidence that they may be physically stronger. Last year, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a fascinating paper by Aaron Sell, John Tooby and Leda Cosmides of the Center for Evolutionary Psychology at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The authors measured the strength of 343 students using weight-lifting machines at a gym. The participating students completed questionnaires designed to measure, among other things, their proneness to anger, their history of fighting and their fondness for aggression as a way to solve both individual and geopolitical problems. Sell, Tooby and Cosmides found that men (but not women) with the most physical strength were the most likely to feel entitled to good treatment, anger easily, view themselves as successful in winning conflicts and believe in physical force as a tool for resolving interpersonal and international conflicts. Women who thought of themselves as pretty showed the same pattern of greater aggression. All of which means that if you are a liberal who believes you're smarter than conservatives, you probably shouldn't bring that up around them. You might not like them when they're angry."
A very large majority of the Democrat vote and victory stems from the almost +90% vote of African Americans. It is undisputable that the "average" IQ of African Americans is 85. It is perhaps even lower today sadyly, because there is a badge of honor in African American culture of being less intelligent. Intelligence is a White thing. First there are the statistical tests and then there are the results. African Americans across the board have not been able to compete with any other group. It is estimated that the War on Poverty (which was suppose to assist African Americans), over 50 years has spent over $21 trillion dollars (adjusted) with no obvious positive results. The IQ deficiency is genetic. No social program, or training, or whatever will help. Another clue is to look at any country in Sub Saharan African (of which African Americans are a part) and see how they are doing. Sub Saharan African with children with flies on them them and bellies that have not been feed are the worst example of governments in the world. It is true that many liberals are very intelligent. In almost every case one can find lack of testosterone and/or adolescent drama - mentally unbalanced. Also there is a systemic lack of true history. We can all appreciate the allure of ideals, only later in life to discern the folly of youth. What is the value of having less intelligent, mentally unbalanced, not fully developed (young) people determine the form of government we have?
Does voting matter anymore? DOJ and the Supreme Court looking the other way while votes are being counted third world style. Money first policy(the swamp) leads to tyranny. Even Trump had to give the swamp veto power, in Pence's Jan. 6 decision. The next Trumper needs to own the swing state legislatures, to reverse the swamp votes. Voters still have consumer power, many 30% see China as a threat. The military is very quiet about all this, they don't want to bite the hand that feeds.
I posted studies which show using statistics that democrats dominate the lower IQ ranks. (one of them was a study from UC Berkeley) Now do democrat also have some smart educated people... Yes... and over my lifetime I have seen many once Republican smart people types... follow the money from private industry to big govt handouts... and big retirement packages. In short some smart people like professors, trial lawyers, doctors and science types vote their wallet.
We definitely need to stop racist conservative whites from the southern confederate states voting.They have proven throughout history how fucking stupid they are. Lincolns presidency was good and bad.Good because it ended slavery,bad because it prevented dumb racist conservative whites from having their own country.The USA would be 1000xs better if the confederate states were no longer a part of it.
Letting stupid, low IQ people vote will be the end of the USA as we know it. These type of people do not know what horrors there will be after they are done voting for their communistic, socialistic, asinine hero's. We are in decline right now as we speak. (Think Kamala Harris/AOC/Bernie the nut, ect) These poor, dumb people have been brainwashed by inferior thinking. I call them dumb asses. Bernie is the King of The Dumb Asses.
Just so you know Tony - Lincoln was for ending slavery because he did not want anymore African Americans in the US. Read The Real Lincoln - Thomas Dilornzo. After the Civil War - slaves were not welcomed into the North with open arms. No one wanted slaves near them. At one time it was suggested by Lincoln that all African Americans be sent back to Africa, However, unfortunately, this never came to be. African Americans continue to be the group that holds the US back more than any other groups. This article was a real shocker "Baltimore HS student fails all but 3 classes over 4 years, ranks near top half of class." https://www.foxnews.com/us/baltimore-student-fails-classes-top-half The mother is upset because no one told her her child was not doing well. He was absent 272 days over his first three years of high school. (This was all because he was black.) Unfortunately, this is just one example of what is happening in ever predominately black Democratic school district. African Americans who can not even read at a 3rd grade school level are graduating from high school around the country. This actually continues on in college where most African Americans are quota students - would never get accepted if they were not African Americans. There is not an African American today who is not grateful that his ancestors were able to come to the US. Any African American wishing unwise should look at living conditions in any Sub Saharan African country. Just get your jive ass over to the Mother Land and see how welcomed you are received.