I'm not talking about a pandemic of mental retardation sweeping the countryside to the point where we've lost sight of our baseline of what constitutes normal intelligence so that the new normal is a dramatically reduced state of intelligence. — Hanover

If the "mental retardation" becomes the normal, we may be looked at like "out of place , hyperactive, abnormal, minority" even be put inside hospital and may be debated whether should we be allowed to vote.
Democracy can still prevail

You can change the scenario to a district where there is a large home of mentally handicapped people who are swayed to vote by someone whose intent is to raid the public funds for his own pet project or you can place them all on a jury to decide someone's guilt. — Hanover

If the scenario is such that there are more number of "mentally handicapped" person than "mentally healthy" people, the definition of mental health will required to be altered. It may be that the what you are thinking of being mentally healthy is actually mentally handicapped for most.

As per definition of democracy it will go by what most people thinks. It does not matter whether it is "good or bad", "right or wrong".

My spirit urges me to create a mental dustbin for those kind of vague comments brimming with faux profundity and lacking in merit.

The question is too generalised to give a proper answer. We're individuals, not the Borg — Sapientia

Let me elaborate the question in a different way?

Individuals choose various ways for living. Some influence others to get organised into institutions, political entities, states etc. some choose to be self centred irrespective of surroundings, some choose to disrupt life of others, yet some choose to just eat, sleep, work. All dies ultimately. It seems without any general aim, there is no relevance of what we do, how we do with the life.

There was a sect led by Goshala Mankhaliputta during 7th century BC from India (contemporary to Buddha and Jainism) that there is no significance after death, hence one should enjoy life in any possible means, if required resort to fraudulent means, stealing, or robbery. Although it is not known whether he himself used these means, his philosophical thoughts on fate or destiny had a strong influence later including Jainism, Buddhism.

Is there a way to find out which one is better than other? Guess that can be judged/derieved only if we know what is our target.

Yes, we simply don't know. — bahman

To me, this question itself is not that important to know, if at all knowable. We can move on with a theory whichever fits best to most circumstances. If somehow later, we come to know a perfect reason, it will be a bonus.

That we exist, and irrespective of how we are created, more important question will be what should we do next. Is there a objective answer?

That is logically impossible too. The argument for this is as following: You cannot reach from infinite past to now with waiting. Therefore there is a beginning. — bahman

For this there is the "Big Bang Theory". Armand Delsemme in "Our cosmic origin" imagined a possible way of start at Big Bang. It too comes with its own baggage of problems though.

I don't believe that there is enough evidence for us to place complete trust and faith in this being that we have not seen, heard, or even experienced. I am interested on all of your views, don't be afraid to comment. — GreyScorpio

To think about existence of God, we can approach the problem in the following way:
What does the concept of God serve. There are a number of fundamental questions/ metaphysical questions answers to which are not satisfactorily known yet. Like some assumptions/ hypothesis in a scientific procedure, the concept of God can temporarily solve these problems and human being can carry on with regular business.

However there are many limitations of concept of God itself, I had posted in some other chain of posts:

Is God an intelligent being and creator of everything, why should He do so?
If He has created out of pleasure, then He is too irresponsible to break the perfect symmetry
If He has created out of kindness/ pity, then question is for whom was this kindness (there was nothing before in perfect condition), the unnecessary kindness is akin to ridicule/ mockery to His own creation
If He has created out of no reason, then He is an Idiot

What is the form of God?
If God is without a form/ body, it itself cannot initiate any creativity. If God is ultimate intelligent being, there must be someone more intelligent who created God. That's an infinite loop.

Overall, I would prefer to keep it simple and imagine that all matter, universe and the physical laws always existed.

PS: These are philosophical thoughts of early Indian Philosophers during 7th century BC (Buddhism, Jainism, some factions of Mimamsa etc.)

Things were in motion after creation and they still are in motion. Therefore things have been not perfect. — bahman

If motion is imperfection, perfect does not exist at all and probably is beyond imagination.
If God is an intelligent being and creator of everything, why should He do so?

If He has created out of pleasure, then He is too irresponsible to break the perfect symmetry
If He has created out of kindness/ pity, then question is for whom was this kindness (there was nothing before in perfect condition), the unnecessary kindness is akin to ridicule/ mockery to His own creation
If He has created out of no reason, then He is an Idiot

In all these cases it goes against the concept of God as the creator of everything. If God is without a form/ body, it itself cannot initiate any creativity. If God is ultimate intelligent being, there must be someone more intelligent who created God. That's an infinite loop. I would prefer to keep it simple and imagine that the motion/ imperfection always existed.

PS: These are philosophical thoughts of early Indian Philosophers during 7th century BC (Buddhism, Jainism, some factions of Mimamsa etc.)

If a set of people are not allowed to participate in activities (eg. voting) which other human beings have formulated, what will be the functions of the people. In all certainty, they will be left to be exploited.

Definitely this was NOT meant to be sarcasm. It points towards what is the purpose of living, if there is any.

So what is the proposed method of elimination-remove them at birth? or later, when a group of people realise that they don't contribute to society?

Also how will the remaining "good" and "efficient" people take the community forward

Are you familiar with the steady state theory (Fred Hoyle)? — Bitter Crank

Steady state theory was once proposed by Einstien, later researched by Fred Hoyle et.al., has many more loopholes than the big bang theory. It does not confirms to observational data, hence most scientific communities are not keen to adopt instead of big bang.

Now why do you think scientists are so reluctant to admit they are totally wrong and just made the whole thing up ? — Rich

The basis of modern science is on observation data, formal logic and assumptions (which can be true or false). Note that it is not too different from study of philosophy

The big bang theory has been based similarly, which answers most of the questions, not all. There is no other better theory which explains the observation data, of there the scientific community will be the first to dump the big bang theory and embrace the better version.

One explanation could be that galaxies acquire their own motion which results in this type of collision. However, isn't the global expansion greater than the local motions? — TheMadFool

Let's assume the observation data that galaxies in general are moving away from each other is true and as well Andromeda is moving closer to Milky way.

Now the galaxies are in clusters called local group, so it is the local group which is moving away from each other. Within the local group due to due to more local influences, movement of the individual galaxies might be different. That's one way this can be explained.

So are you saying they do not contribute to the society and probably won't in near future. So they are not required in society. Will it also conclude that they should be eliminated from the society otherwise they will consume useful resources??

That you have given a fairly clear definition of success and failure (to achieve equality/inequality), it is not proven that communism is a success or it being a superior ideology.

So why don't you give some examples of doing good

I will take it as an example what you feel is success or failure.
Communism collapsed in many places. Why do you say democracy is a failure and communism a success.

I think it is a trial and error method of systems which people at different places and time are trying out what suits best and it is a spontaneous process, so the people themselves are not consciously selecting a system. Somewhat similar to Aristotle's concept of politics.

What is to do "good"? Is it applicable to life of all animals?

Give some random example:
Is Trump doing good or bad?
Is Kim doing good or bad?

How could God create imperfection? — bahman

It would be better if you can give some examples of imperfections which is created (by God)

What is the definition of success and failure?

Should every single person be screened for IQ level just before voting. A person under drug or alcohol before voting can have lower reasoning or unintended reasoning. This the person might not contribute effectively.

How do one assess the IQ value for all persons.

How does it compare with various Nations possessing fatal weapons?

So it points to what should be the basic criteria for having voting rights:
1) No filtration irrespective of education, sex, colour, age.
2) If it is felt that all cannot contribute, then who can? what would be the ideal filtration criteria in democracy.

All has limitations.

-Education: If that is the criteria, should it be more degrees/ certificates will have more voting right. If not what is the cut-off line of stage of education?
-Sex and Colour: Keeping is out of this argument
-Age: Simplest of all, easy to track. For some mental age can be less, but how can that be distinguised from less-educated, trouble is we do not know what is the ideal cut-off age. Hence it is easy to go by definition of adulthood in respective nation-states

Every single human being who knows what is the aim of voting should be allowed to vote. This is not applicable to ones who does not understand the purpose of voting, they does not need anyway.

Since it is quite difficult to filter precisely the above criteria, just go by a cut-off age number presuming the kids don't understand the purpose/ implication of voting

Having said that, voting is only a way to find out what maximum people want, irrespective of whether it is right or wrong, good or bad.

If voting can conclude the answer, yes, we can vote. However voting by its own method only tells how many people supports a view and how many does not. Voting "does not" give a answer right or wrong.

I cannot understand why such persons should be granted the right to vote. — Dachshund

It depends on how one defines "mental disability" and who defines it.

The concept of heaven and hell is a self control regulatory mechanism. It is quite clear that people cannot control others totally by laws or even by force. Hence by imposing threat of heaven or hell guides that you do "good" while you live. This is probably more efficient than total policing.
Now what constitutes "good" depends on the religion