I feel compelled to make the case for why I believe voting should be a privilege, and not an individual right. Because if we stay the course and continue to treat it as a constitutional or individual right, we’ll keep the door open to having white supremacists, bigots, racists, sexists, and outright morons in positions of power and, again and again, naively ask ourselves, “What just happened?”

Case in point: If someone believes LGBTQ+ individuals deserve no rights, or that Black people are an inferior race, or that women shouldn’t have control over their own bodies, or if someone thinks a white man is automatically more qualified and competent to lead a nation than a person of color or a woman, then I rest my case. That person simply wouldn’t be eligible to vote because a well-written, universal, and standardized EQ/IQ screening test would detect these deeply disturbing and harmful biases.

And such an individual would be disqualified—not just from voting, but also from becoming an elected official, and not based on personal opinions, but due to their failure to meet the minimum emotional and cognitive threshold required to vote responsibly. This kind of filtering system wouldn’t be about excluding or disenfranchising people, but rather about evolving into a more just and compassionate society and protecting it from further regressing into tribalism, ignorance, divisiveness, hate, and violence.

To be clear, I firmly stand for fundamental human rights such as LGBTQ+ rights, sexual rights, gender equality, freedom of speech, the right to die with dignity, religious freedom, and bodily autonomy. But voting? I’m not so sure it should be treated like a blanket right anymore. Maybe it’s time to admit that democracy needs more quality control. After all, voting is one of the most powerful tools we have in a democratic society. But the real question we must ask ourselves is: “Should it be granted to everyone automatically, or should it be earned?”

Now, there’s no question that we evolve as individuals, and so do our values, our thinking, and our capacity for reason. Unfortunately, cognitive decline and the loss of mental faculties are real and often inevitable for many. Should a person who is cognitively impaired vote? If your answer is “no” and you are consistent, it logically follows that a person who is emotionally unstable or has no EQ, and/or is intellectually deficient, shouldn’t vote either.

And the reality is that many voters and politicians exhibit such deficiencies in both intellectual and emotional competencies that undermine their ability to make sound decisions for society. And that is the big issue here. I believe we must fundamentally reevaluate the rules that govern voting in our society. As mentioned, and I emphasize, this isn’t about disenfranchising people, but about upgrading democracy. Imagine a transparent, accessible testing system, designed not to exclude, but to ensure a baseline of civic competence. One that measures critical thinking, emotional and intellectual intelligence, a basic understanding of how government works, and respect for human rights and diversity.

No memory drills, no elitism, no favoritism, but just a fair threshold rooted in reason and compassion. Wouldn’t that be something? Because while treating voting as a right has historically empowered millions, treating it as a privilege may be the only way to ensure that society is compassionately and intelligently heard. Otherwise, without some filter of civic responsibility, basic competence, and shared humanity, we will continue to risk being governed by the ignorant, irrational, uninformed, uneducated, emotionally unstable, and ideologically dangerous. And you know what that means.

Geniocracy and Voting as a Privilege

Based on the concept of Geniocracy proposed by the International Raelian Movement (Geniocracy), treating voting as a privilege aligns more naturally with the Raelian model than viewing it as a universal right. In this system, the privilege of voting is reserved for individuals who demonstrate high intellectual (IQ) and emotional (EQ) competence, along with being well-informed. The aim is to establish governance by the most qualified minds—those capable of making decisions rooted in reason, compassion, and long-term vision.

Rather than empowering the majority by default or those who merely seek political power, Geniocracy advocates for leadership by the most intelligent and wise individuals. It emphasizes that society should be guided by those best equipped—mentally, emotionally, and ethically—to make decisions that serve the collective good. This approach reflects the Raelian belief in intelligence and wisdom as essential pillars of governance, striving to create a world where political leadership is not driven by popularity or ambition, but by knowledge, critical thinking, and an unwavering commitment to human rights and dignity.

Selection of the Most Qualified Leaders

Geniocracy advocates for a system in which leaders are selected based on their intelligence, wisdom, and demonstrated ability to govern effectively and for the People. In this context, voting becomes a privilege granted to those who meet a certain threshold of knowledge and understanding coupled with high IQ & EQ. The goal is to ensure that critical societal decisions are shaped by individuals capable of grasping complex issues and envisioning long-term consequences—ultimately leading to more informed governance and better outcomes for society.

Merit-Based Participation

In a Geniocratic system, voting is not extended automatically to all citizens. Instead, it is reserved for those who fulfill specific intellectual and emotional criteria, often measured through standardized cognitive and emotional assessments (e.g., IQ and EQ). This approach rests on the belief that while everyone may have opinions, not everyone possesses the necessary tools to make informed choices on intricate political and social matters. Limiting participation to those deemed more competent is intended to reduce the risks of impulsive, uninformed, and ill-informed decision-making.

Preventing the “Tyranny of the Majority”

Geniocracy also seeks to avoid what is sometimes referred to as the tyranny of the majority—a condition where the uninformed opinions of the masses result in policies that may be harmful to the broader population or the planet. By treating voting as a privilege, the system aims to filter political power through the lens of wisdom and competence, thereby safeguarding collective well-being and protecting society from the potential consequences of populism, extremism, or demagoguery.

Promoting Rational, Science-Based Governance

The Raelian philosophy places a premium on rationality, scientific evidence, and compassion. A Geniocratic voting system supports this by ensuring that only those capable of critical thinking, logical reasoning, and emotional competence influence political outcomes. This emphasis on reason over rhetoric, and competence over charisma, aligns with the Raelian vision of a future guided by science, empathy, and long-term planetary stewardship.

Felix Clairvoyant