Best political system (and how to get there).

[PyramidHead]

Those who want change need to keep working at it, even it will require another 50 years to finally happen.



Some form of direct democracy. Where "voters" deal directly with issues rather than being forced to worship guru-demagogue-blowhard-speechmakers (candidates).

This doesn't mean holding a "referendum" vote on everything. There are many other possibilities.

While a pure democracy has some appeal, how do you prevent the backside of the IQ curve from dominating when all they need is 1% of the frontside to vote for self-interest?

Simple: anyone who talks about IQ as if it means anything no longer has the right to vote.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Resources are scarce.

Of course. But money ultimately isn't. Or there wouldn't be inflation, would there?

Why not use government resources for people who can't afford housing?

I don't know, why not? What are "government resources"? If you're asking why gov't doesn't prioritise that from a limited pot of tax receipts, the answer is that gov't spending isn't limited by a pot of tax receipts.

I can buy my own building through the private sector - and it doesn't cost you anything. I don't know why a strong business need government help to buy a building.

Neither do I. But I can imagine why start-ups and marginal businesses might need help. Or why strong businesses might become weak in a downturn. Or public services that run at cost or provide non-profit public goods. Etc.

The SBA provides 504 loans. Those loans partner with a bank to lower the amount of equity a borrower needs. But those loans are paid back with interest. They don't cost the tax payer anything.

Neither does any other Federal govt spending. The currency issuer does not ultimately need currency users' money. Sounds like exactly the kind of b/s that should be scrapped in favour of explicit public funding.

..So TBC (because the above, though a fair question, is somewhat tangential), I'm advocating a functional finance model where gov't creates most - or enough - of the money in the economy, debt-free.

It isn't even necessarily left wing or progressive. Right wing economists like Milton Friedman and The Chicago School have proposed basically the same thing. Or centrists like Martin Wolf and Adair Turner.

It does, however, address the perennial question : HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR IT?.

Answer : THE SAME WAY WE ALREADY PAY FOR PUBLIC GOODS.

Govt essentially spends the money into existence and taxes it out again to control inflation if necessary. The so-called "borrowing" (bond issues in excess current tax receipts) does not fund deficits, but offsets them with private sector savings and gives the central bank (eg Fed) a tool to control interest rates. The cumulative "debt" is just a record of the difference between what gov't has spent into and taxed out of the private sector. LOOK :

It's just the way our monetary systems already work (i.e. US, UK, Australia, Japan, Canada etc. Not Eurozone members, and not developing/small economies which must spend/borrow in foreign currencies).


TLDR version : Unlike a household or firm, the govt does not need to balance the budget, it needs to balance the economy, and already has the tools to do so. The real constraint is inflation - ultimately productive capacity - not money. We can have all the nice things we can produce, but we are stunting growth with inequality and an artificial scarcity of money.

 

[dismal]

Try getting in a political discussion with the public on a topic you actually really know and understand. Like, in a field where you've worked for 20 years. The confidence with people who might otherwise be intelligent people dispense politicized blather will astonish you. And they will have plenty of sources on the internet to confirm their irrational religious beliefs. Their beliefs will not be affected by contact with someone who actually knows the subject. There is no hope down this path.

Obviously some do as I mentioned, but if you are saying all are like that, then you might reflect upon the idea that the problem is more internal than external.

If you spend time here and don't come away with the same belief I have the problem is on your end. Politics is now more like religion than religion.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Those who want change need to keep working at it, even it will require another 50 years to finally happen.



Some form of direct democracy. Where "voters" deal directly with issues rather than being forced to worship guru-demagogue-blowhard-speechmakers (candidates).

This doesn't mean holding a "referendum" vote on everything. There are many other possibilities.

While a pure democracy has some appeal, how do you prevent the backside of the IQ curve from dominating when all they need is 1% of the frontside to vote for self-interest?

Simple: anyone who talks about IQ as if it means anything no longer has the right to vote.

LOL. Which explains why people vote the way they do. Sad.

- - - Updated - - -

Try getting in a political discussion with the public on a topic you actually really know and understand. Like, in a field where you've worked for 20 years. The confidence with people who might otherwise be intelligent people dispense politicized blather will astonish you. And they will have plenty of sources on the internet to confirm their irrational religious beliefs. Their beliefs will not be affected by contact with someone who actually knows the subject. There is no hope down this path.

Obviously some do as I mentioned, but if you are saying all are like that, then you might reflect upon the idea that the problem is more internal than external.

If you spend time here and don't come away with the same belief I have the problem is on your end. Politics is now more like religion than religion.

Dude, you should try speaking some things into a mirror before posting them online for the entire world to see. Just sayin’.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Resources are scarce.

Of course. But money ultimately isn't. Or there wouldn't be inflation, would there?

Why not use government resources for people who can't afford housing?

I don't know, why not? What are "government resources"? If you're asking why gov't doesn't prioritise that from a limited pot of tax receipts, the answer is that gov't spending isn't limited by a pot of tax receipts.

I can buy my own building through the private sector - and it doesn't cost you anything. I don't know why a strong business need government help to buy a building.

Neither do I. But I can imagine why start-ups and marginal businesses might need help. Or why strong businesses might become weak in a downturn. Or public services that run at cost or provide non-profit public goods. Etc.

The SBA provides 504 loans. Those loans partner with a bank to lower the amount of equity a borrower needs. But those loans are paid back with interest. They don't cost the tax payer anything.

Neither does any other Federal govt spending. The currency issuer does not ultimately need currency users' money. Sounds like exactly the kind of b/s that should be scrapped in favour of explicit public funding.

Startups and marginal companies need help generally because they have bad management. If you have bad decision makers, throwing money at them isn't going to help. I just don't see any compelling reason to use government money for costs that can be picked up by the private sector. If federal gov spending truly is unlimited, I'd rather see us tackle the costs of higher education, health care, infrastructure, cleaning up the environment. I'm a whacko, but I actually think that our number one threat today is the environment (not failing startup companies). I'd rather see government resources going towards lowering carbon, cleaning the air, cleaning the oceans and etc.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Of course. But money ultimately isn't. Or there wouldn't be inflation, would there?


I don't know, why not? What are "government resources"? If you're asking why gov't doesn't prioritise that from a limited pot of tax receipts, the answer is that gov't spending isn't limited by a pot of tax receipts.

I can buy my own building through the private sector - and it doesn't cost you anything. I don't know why a strong business need government help to buy a building.

Neither do I. But I can imagine why start-ups and marginal businesses might need help. Or why strong businesses might become weak in a downturn. Or public services that run at cost or provide non-profit public goods. Etc.

The SBA provides 504 loans. Those loans partner with a bank to lower the amount of equity a borrower needs. But those loans are paid back with interest. They don't cost the tax payer anything.

Neither does any other Federal govt spending. The currency issuer does not ultimately need currency users' money. Sounds like exactly the kind of b/s that should be scrapped in favour of explicit public funding.

..So TBC (because the above, though a fair question, is somewhat tangential), I'm advocating a functional finance model where gov't creates most - or enough - of the money in the economy, debt-free.

It isn't even necessarily left wing or progressive. Right wing economists like Milton Friedman and The Chicago School have proposed basically the same thing. Or centrists like Martin Wolf and Adair Turner.

It does, however, address the perennial question : HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR IT?.

Answer : THE SAME WAY WE ALREADY PAY FOR PUBLIC GOODS.

Govt essentially spends the money into existence and taxes it out again to control inflation if necessary. The so-called "borrowing" (bond issues in excess current tax receipts) does not fund deficits, but offsets them with private sector savings and gives the central bank (eg Fed) a tool to control interest rates. The cumulative "debt" is just a record of the difference between what gov't has spent into and taxed out of the private sector. LOOK :

It's just the way our monetary systems already work (i.e. US, UK, Australia, Japan, Canada etc. Not Eurozone members, and not developing/small economies which must spend/borrow in foreign currencies).


TLDR version : Unlike a household or firm, the govt does not need to balance the budget, it needs to balance the economy, and already has the tools to do so. The real constraint is inflation - ultimately productive capacity - not money. We can have all the nice things we can produce, but we are stunting growth with inequality and an artificial scarcity of money.

I'm not arguing with you that the budget has to be balanced. I'm just saying that all the needs in society (education, housing, food, cleaner environment, better roads, high speed internet, economic development, cleaning the oceans, and etc.) that providing rich guys grants to buy buildings is pretty dang far down the totem pole for me!

 

[Canard DuJour]

Of course. But money ultimately isn't. Or there wouldn't be inflation, would there?


I don't know, why not? What are "government resources"? If you're asking why gov't doesn't prioritise that from a limited pot of tax receipts, the answer is that gov't spending isn't limited by a pot of tax receipts.

I can buy my own building through the private sector - and it doesn't cost you anything. I don't know why a strong business need government help to buy a building.

Neither do I. But I can imagine why start-ups and marginal businesses might need help. Or why strong businesses might become weak in a downturn. Or public services that run at cost or provide non-profit public goods. Etc.

The SBA provides 504 loans. Those loans partner with a bank to lower the amount of equity a borrower needs. But those loans are paid back with interest. They don't cost the tax payer anything.

Neither does any other Federal govt spending. The currency issuer does not ultimately need currency users' money. Sounds like exactly the kind of b/s that should be scrapped in favour of explicit public funding.

Startups and marginal companies need help generally because they have bad management. If you have bad decision makers, throwing money at them isn't going to help. I just don't see any compelling reason to use government money for costs that can be picked up by the private sector.

Meh - even if that's true, I doubt private sector lenders are uniquely equipped to assess it simply by dint of privateness. Contrary to neoliberal myth, the public sector has a good record of picking winners

As it is, private sector lenders overwhelmingly fund competition for existing real estate and speculative financial "assets" which keep crashing the real economy of production, consumption and employment. "Throwing money at" productive endeavours and seeing what sticks is what they're supposed to do. Private sector lenders simply aren't doing enough of it. And why would they in world of chronically indebted consumers?

Harry, apologies if I'm confusing you with another poster, but aren't you a financier with proven experience of funding start-ups? I'm not suggesting cutting you out, I'm suggesting recruiting you and using your expertise++. I can't see what objection you'd have, other than ideological.

If federal gov spending truly is unlimited,

It's limited by real resources, not money.

I'd rather see us tackle the costs of higher education, health care, infrastructure, cleaning up the environment. I'm a whacko, but I actually think that our number one threat today is the environment (not failing startup companies). I'd rather see government resources going towards lowering carbon, cleaning the air, cleaning the oceans and etc.

They're not mutually exclusive - quite the opposite. Don't go all zero-sum on us.

 

[dismal]

Simple: anyone who talks about IQ as if it means anything no longer has the right to vote.

LOL. Which explains why people vote the way they do. Sad.

- - - Updated - - -

Try getting in a political discussion with the public on a topic you actually really know and understand. Like, in a field where you've worked for 20 years. The confidence with people who might otherwise be intelligent people dispense politicized blather will astonish you. And they will have plenty of sources on the internet to confirm their irrational religious beliefs. Their beliefs will not be affected by contact with someone who actually knows the subject. There is no hope down this path.

Obviously some do as I mentioned, but if you are saying all are like that, then you might reflect upon the idea that the problem is more internal than external.

If you spend time here and don't come away with the same belief I have the problem is on your end. Politics is now more like religion than religion.

Dude, you should try speaking some things into a mirror before posting them online for the entire world to see. Just sayin’.

You realize this sort of comment supports my point?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

LOL. Which explains why people vote the way they do. Sad.

- - - Updated - - -

Try getting in a political discussion with the public on a topic you actually really know and understand. Like, in a field where you've worked for 20 years. The confidence with people who might otherwise be intelligent people dispense politicized blather will astonish you. And they will have plenty of sources on the internet to confirm their irrational religious beliefs. Their beliefs will not be affected by contact with someone who actually knows the subject. There is no hope down this path.

Obviously some do as I mentioned, but if you are saying all are like that, then you might reflect upon the idea that the problem is more internal than external.

If you spend time here and don't come away with the same belief I have the problem is on your end. Politics is now more like religion than religion.

Dude, you should try speaking some things into a mirror before posting them online for the entire world to see. Just sayin’.

You realize this sort of comment supports my point?

I realize that you see things through a different prism than the people with whom I work.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Of course. But money ultimately isn't. Or there wouldn't be inflation, would there?


I don't know, why not? What are "government resources"? If you're asking why gov't doesn't prioritise that from a limited pot of tax receipts, the answer is that gov't spending isn't limited by a pot of tax receipts.


Neither do I. But I can imagine why start-ups and marginal businesses might need help. Or why strong businesses might become weak in a downturn. Or public services that run at cost or provide non-profit public goods. Etc.

The SBA provides 504 loans. Those loans partner with a bank to lower the amount of equity a borrower needs. But those loans are paid back with interest. They don't cost the tax payer anything.

Neither does any other Federal govt spending. The currency issuer does not ultimately need currency users' money. Sounds like exactly the kind of b/s that should be scrapped in favour of explicit public funding.

Startups and marginal companies need help generally because they have bad management. If you have bad decision makers, throwing money at them isn't going to help. I just don't see any compelling reason to use government money for costs that can be picked up by the private sector.

Meh - even if that's true, I doubt private sector lenders are uniquely equipped to assess it simply by dint of privateness. Contrary to neoliberal myth, the public sector has a good record of picking winners

As it is, private sector lenders overwhelmingly fund competition for existing real estate and speculative financial "assets" which keep crashing the real economy of production, consumption and employment. "Throwing money at" productive endeavours and seeing what sticks is what they're supposed to do. Private sector lenders simply aren't doing enough of it. And why would they in world of chronically indebted consumers?

Harry, apologies if I'm confusing you with another poster, but aren't you a financier with proven experience of funding start-ups? I'm not suggesting cutting you out, I'm suggesting recruiting you and using your expertise++. I can't see what objection you'd have, other than ideological.

If federal gov spending truly is unlimited,

It's limited by real resources, not money.

I'd rather see us tackle the costs of higher education, health care, infrastructure, cleaning up the environment. I'm a whacko, but I actually think that our number one threat today is the environment (not failing startup companies). I'd rather see government resources going towards lowering carbon, cleaning the air, cleaning the oceans and etc.

They're not mutually exclusive - quite the opposite. Don't go all zero-sum on us.

Yes, I'm a banker! I used to be a commercial banker for a bank. Now I own a small manufacturing company. This means that I make a product and sell it on terms, so people owe me money again! I always be banker. (An inside joke that anyone who owns a small business understands). I'm not saying that that private sector bankers make better decisions than public sector "bankers" (SBA, USDA, and etc.). But private sector bankers lend money that puts their bank at risk. Public sector bankers would lend putting the public monies at risk. Wouldn't you rather have public sector money more secure to be counted on for our schools, SSN, and etc?

Here's another way to look at it: the private sector does a great job making and selling cheese burgers. Do you advocate the government taking over distribution of cheese burgers? If not, what is the difference?

 

[untermensche]

Simple: anyone who talks about IQ as if it means anything no longer has the right to vote.

IQ does mean something.

It is a score on a test.

It does not mean a person has any sense at all however.

 

[DBT]

Scandinavian countries appear to be doing quite well on the social happiness scale. They must be doing something right.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some form of direct democracy. Where "voters" deal directly with issues rather than being forced to worship guru-demagogue-blowhard-speechmakers (candidates).

This doesn't mean holding a "referendum" vote on everything. There are many other possibilities.

Horrible idea.

1) This causes a system with very little inertia. It will swing back and forth with the fad of the moment.

2) Many issues require a fair amount of understanding, the simple answer is wrong. Voters don't have the time to dig into such matters.

3) Look at where we have direct democracy now--ballot initiatives. The vast majority of them are utter crap, even when they appear to do something good. Even the ones that pass are often crap.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

(Re)nationalise central banks and seriously restrict the ability of commercial banks to lend money into existence.

Money is a public good.

Shoot economists at random until they start devising realistic theories.

If you remove the ability to lend you remove the banks. Everyone keeps their money under the mattress, most of the internet goes away (because with no credit cards there's little money to be made online.) Big win for the burglars and the safe companies, big loss for everyone else.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why is "voter apathy" necessarily bad? Non-participation might be a more intelligent choice than --

-- than joining the Red or Blue mindless herd of cattle.

Agreed that voter apathy is a major problem in the world's largest democracy....even if it's really a Federal Constitutional Republic.

But part of the cause of the apathy is the snobbery and demagoguery of those in power, who only give us a list of demagogues to choose from to rule over us.

If citizens played a role where they actually think directly on the matters to be decided, many would be less apathetic. When what we think doesn't matter, it makes us more apathetic.

But when "apathy" is voluntary, because someone genuinely doesn't care, why is that a "major problem"? Why isn't it OK if they choose not to participate because they really don't care, as long as they're always free to change their mind later and participate, when they do care?

The real "problem" is that those who are truly interested and seek a genuine way to participate are denied this and instead are only handed a list of demagogues to choose from and are told that all they're good for is to choose a demagogue from this list.

What we need is a system which is open to everyone to participate in, if they want to, letting them play a genuine role which engages their mind.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Just because a citizen is lazy, apathetic, uneducated or narcissistic is not an excuse to blame it on others.

Blame WHAT on others? You're just as lazy and apathetic and uneducated and narcissistic as those citizens, for insisting that they must play your game. The only difference between you and them is that you're labeling them as lazy etc., while they're just ignoring you. Is that what "apathy" means? you call them names, and they must be wrong because instead of calling you names back, they just go on about their business and ignore your judgmental condemnation of them?

Instead of condemning them for being narcissistic etc., why don't you answer what is the "problem" if someone is "apathetic"? Just because someone is not obsessed with these demagogue blowhard candidates like you are does not mean he's lazy or uneducated or narcissistic.

That's like condemning everyone who's not a member of your religion. Your worship of these candidates is like a religion. Why do you condemn others as a "problem" because they do not share your blind faith in these demagogues you want them to vote for? Maybe they have a good reason to not worship these demagogues like you do, or to not care which one wins the beauty contest.

Just like some people don't care who wins the Super Bowl. You would have difficulty proving that it matters whether the Republican or Democrat wins.

So maybe the "problem" of some people not voting is your failure to show them any reason why they should, and why it matters which one wins.

And even in a perfect system which is "fair" to all sides, or to everyone in the society, there might be a good reason why someone does not participate, because they're indecisive about the choices offered to them, or they trust others to make the decisions. Why is that a "problem"?

They're free to join the process if and when they do care enough to participate.

Why is it necessarily a "problem" that some don't participate in your ritual of choosing a demagogue from the list of charismatic speech-makers ("candidates")? Maybe such a beauty contest does not have the same appeal for them that it does for you. Or maybe, unlike you, they're indecisive, not having Absolute Certainty which of these demagogues is the True Messiah who should reign over them. That makes them a "major problem"?

Maybe the "major problem" is not their lack of interest in your list of demagogues, but your dogmatic insistence that they are flawed for having this doubt and indecisiveness, and your preaching at them that they are uneducated and lazy and narcissistic for not thinking the same way you do.

That’s pure Trumpian logic. I noticed that the Democrats worked extra hard on this election to get out the vote. Even so, I expect the actual turnout will be less than 70%.

Oh, so the only "apathy" that is a "problem" is that of the anti-Trump or pro-Democrat voters who fail to show up. Meanwhile you want the pro-Trump voters to be apathetic and stay home. The only large turnout you want is among those who would vote your way.

So "apathy" is just a petty partisan term used by each side to whip its herd of voters into line. You're just depressed because the Trumpsters did so well at herding their cattle to the large rallies, to whip them up into a frenzy and inspire them to vote, while your herd of cattle was aimless and lacking a Trump-demagogue of its own to whip it into line.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

When the last Fox News commentator has been strangled with the guts of the last Tea Party Republican politician.....

 

[Canard DuJour]

Of course. But money ultimately isn't. Or there wouldn't be inflation, would there?


I don't know, why not? What are "government resources"? If you're asking why gov't doesn't prioritise that from a limited pot of tax receipts, the answer is that gov't spending isn't limited by a pot of tax receipts.


Neither do I. But I can imagine why start-ups and marginal businesses might need help. Or why strong businesses might become weak in a downturn. Or public services that run at cost or provide non-profit public goods. Etc.


Neither does any other Federal govt spending. The currency issuer does not ultimately need currency users' money. Sounds like exactly the kind of b/s that should be scrapped in favour of explicit public funding.

Startups and marginal companies need help generally because they have bad management. If you have bad decision makers, throwing money at them isn't going to help. I just don't see any compelling reason to use government money for costs that can be picked up by the private sector.

Meh - even if that's true, I doubt private sector lenders are uniquely equipped to assess it simply by dint of privateness. Contrary to neoliberal myth, the public sector has a good record of picking winners

As it is, private sector lenders overwhelmingly fund competition for existing real estate and speculative financial "assets" which keep crashing the real economy of production, consumption and employment. "Throwing money at" productive endeavours and seeing what sticks is what they're supposed to do. Private sector lenders simply aren't doing enough of it. And why would they in world of chronically indebted consumers?

Harry, apologies if I'm confusing you with another poster, but aren't you a financier with proven experience of funding start-ups? I'm not suggesting cutting you out, I'm suggesting recruiting you and using your expertise++. I can't see what objection you'd have, other than ideological.

If federal gov spending truly is unlimited,

It's limited by real resources, not money.

I'd rather see us tackle the costs of higher education, health care, infrastructure, cleaning up the environment. I'm a whacko, but I actually think that our number one threat today is the environment (not failing startup companies). I'd rather see government resources going towards lowering carbon, cleaning the air, cleaning the oceans and etc.

They're not mutually exclusive - quite the opposite. Don't go all zero-sum on us.

Yes, I'm a banker! I used to be a commercial banker for a bank. Now I own a small manufacturing company. This means that I make a product and sell it on terms, so people owe me money again! I always be banker. (An inside joke that anyone who owns a small business understands). I'm not saying that that private sector bankers make better decisions than public sector "bankers" (SBA, USDA, and etc.). But private sector bankers lend money that puts their bank at risk. Public sector bankers would lend putting the public monies at risk.

No they wouldn't. There isn't really some pot of "public monies" in that sense. That isn't really how public finance works for a monetary sovereign (see post #62 ITT). The govt does not need to balance its budget, it needs to balance the economy.

Wouldn't you rather have public sector money more secure to be counted on for our schools, SSN, and etc?

But that ain't the choice. Private sector lenders overwhelmingly fund competition for existing real estate and asset bubbles which actually damage the real economy, and invest too little in it. I'd rather the private sector took care of itself but it ain't doing so. Gov't, meanwhile, isn't revenue-constrained like a household or firm and needn't divert funding from schools etc.

That'd be a small - and not necessary - part of it anyway. I'm mainly talking about funding public goods i.e. the sort of things Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn propose, which get slapped down with deficit-hysteria. I think that would help the private sector take care of itself. People who dislike public spending often talk as if education, healthcare, infrastructure etc were a drag on the productive economy. In fact they are engines of the productive economy. The bloated financial sector is the drag. Contractors, nurses, teachers with disposable income would stimulate growth. The constraint would be inflation -not "public monies"- at which point gov't would cut spending and/or raise taxes (and whatever tinkering central banks want to do with interest rates).

Govts everywhere did something of the kind after WWII despite debt that dwarfed today's. The result was the most sustained boom in history.

Here's another way to look at it: the private sector does a great job making and selling cheese burgers. Do you advocate the government taking over distribution of cheese burgers? If not, what is the difference?

The difference between a start-up grant/loan for a new product and taking over distribution of an established one. A world of difference.
But, again, that'd be a small - and not necessary - part of it. A functional finance model just makes it explicit that it's an option.

 

[Canard DuJour]

(Re)nationalise central banks and seriously restrict the ability of commercial banks to lend money into existence.

Money is a public good.

Shoot economists at random until they start devising realistic theories.

If you remove the ability to lend you remove the banks. Everyone[..etc]

good thing no one's suggesting it then.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why should only humans be allowed to vote?

Simple: anyone who talks about IQ as if it means anything no longer has the right to vote.

IQ does mean something.

It is a score on a test.

It does not mean a person has any sense at all however.

Why not let animals vote?

It could be done:

The animals would be presented with the candidates, either directly or through images, or maybe by being exposed to each candidate's scent. Then each animal's response to a candidate could be analyzed, and the candidate which gets the more favorable response would be credited with that animal's vote.

Why should only humans be allowed to vote? or only animals which have intelligence?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Simple: anyone who talks about IQ as if it means anything no longer has the right to vote.

IQ does mean something.

It is a score on a test.

It does not mean a person has any sense at all however.

Why not let animals vote?

It could be done:

The animals would be presented with the candidates, either directly or through images, or maybe by being exposed to each candidate's scent. Then each animal's response to a candidate could be analyzed, and the candidate which gets the more favorable response would be credited with that animal's vote.

Why should only humans be allowed to vote? or only animals which have intelligence?

It appears the only requirement is for a voter to grunt out their name and put a paw on the name of the candidate they like.