Should we limit voting rights and change democracy?

This came up in Elgalaads elitism thread and I thought it is general enough to make a thread out of...

To come to some reasonable argument about voting rights first we have to start with some assumptions. Obviously, these are my assumptions and we can argue about those but we have to start somewhere.

Assumption 1: Everyone has a right to have an opinion and every tax-paying member of the society or someone who provably produces worth to the society (like mothers who stay at home and bring up children but do not work) should have a say on how society should be governed

Assumption 2: Everyone is not equal. In a rational society we should strive for equality of oppurtunity and not equality of rights. rights are not given. They are earned. The only rights that are given to everyone without question are (a) right to live (b) right to equal oppurtunity. {this comes from an ideal that I hold that I have stated earlier in this forum. Everyone is not equal, but they are equally precious }

Assumption 3: Democracy works better the more the voting population is educated. The more educated they are they better democracy works.

Given the above assumptions it is almost trivial to make a better system than we have now. The rules of the system works like this.

(a) The minimum vote that a person can cast is 1. A person can chose to cast 1 to the maximum number of vote)s he is eligible to cast. A person can be eligible for more than 1 vote
(b) A person becomes eligible to vote if and only if he makes provable contribution to society. You make a provable contribution to society if any of the following criteria is met

• You pay taxes
• You have earnings but they are not taxable
• You are a house-wife (or house partner for gays etc)
• You are compensated for work you do in non-monetary terms

{the above list is not exhaustive; we can probably add to it. However, the key point is there is no age based voting right. You get the right only when you contribute.}
(c) The number of votes that you are eligible to cast depend on the maximum amount of education that you have achieved. Once again the details can be argued about but we can go with a simple system first. 1 vote for primary school education. 2 for secondary school education. 3 for bachelors level education. 4 for masters. 5 for Phds. 6 for Postdocs (professors etc). 10 for Nobel prize winners.

So do you agree that the above system is better? If yes, why? if not why not?

I believe it is better of course.

The Religious Right just had a heart spasm.

You're going to let all those liberal weiner college professors vote multiple times?

Really need a maybe... or a radioactive monkey...

I think Robert Heinlein had it best in Starship Troopers. I like the idea of people needing to do civil service (not just military) for a minimum of 2 years in order to earn the right to vote.

EDIT: The problem with the above method is higher education doesn't necesarily mean anything other than: My parents were rich...

Little Raven said:

The Religious Right just had a heart spasm.

You're going to let all those liberal weiner college professors vote multiple times?

Click to expand...

If most of the religious right is not much educated and most of educated college profs are liberal then that says something, don't you think?

betazed said:

If most of the religious right is not much educated and most of educated college profs are liberal then that says something, don't you think?

Click to expand...

That COLLEGE TEACHES LIBERALISM???

And to say most of the religious right is 'not much educated' is stretching things a bit, no?

Paradigne said:

And to say most of the religious right is 'not much educated' is stretching things a bit, no?

Click to expand...

sure it is stretching things a bit (maybe) Which is the reason I said

betazed said:

If most of the religious right ...

Click to expand...

Why do we always assume that the vast majority of college professors are leftist?

I would be interested in some numbers about this. I'm sure most fine arts professors are decidedly leftist, but I would bet applied science profs tend to lean the other way.

Paradigne said:

EDIT: The problem with the above method is higher education doesn't necesarily mean anything other than: My parents were rich...

Click to expand...

Wrong. That is the reason I specifically stated in the above scheme that there is equal oppurtunity.

Equal oppurtunity means that everyone has an equal oppurtunity to pursue whatever education one chooses to.

betazed said:

Assumption 1: Everyone has a right to have an opinion and every tax-paying member of the society or someone who provably produces worth to the society (like mothers who stay at home and bring up children but do not work) should have a say on how society should be governed

Click to expand...

Why do only tax payers get this? Just because you don't pay taxes does not mean you are worse.

Assumption 3: Democracy works better the more the voting population is educated. The more educated they are they better democracy works.

Click to expand...

I do agree that we need educated people but college is not the only way.

• You pay taxes
• You have earnings but they are not taxable
• You are a house-wife (or house partner for gays etc)
• You are compensated for work you do in non-monetary terms

Click to expand...

Again why do taxes make you special?
Why does housewifery make you better than someone who isn't? I live alone so I do what a housewife would normally do like clean and pay bills and go shopping.

{the above list is not exhaustive; we can probably add to it. However, the key point is there is no age based voting right. You get the right only when you contribute.}
(c) The number of votes that you are eligible to cast depend on the maximum amount of education that you have achieved. Once again the details can be argued about but we can go with a simple system first. 1 vote for primary school education. 2 for secondary school education. 3 for bachelors level education. 4 for masters. 5 for Phds. 6 for Postdocs (professors etc). 10 for Nobel prize winners.

Click to expand...

Why does contribution mean you are better or more knowlagable? Just because I help the economy with giving people jobs does not mean I know more about politics, except maybe how to get myself more money. Education does not equal intelligence. I did not do very well at school. Not because I am dumb but because I am not "compatable" with it. Just because you can "do what the state says" on getting a degree does not mean you deserve more voting rights.

[/QUOTE]

In your system a drunken Phd who contribtes very little to society while an innovative entrepreneur with an associates degree contributes much more yet the entrepreneur get's less votes? That ain't right!

Monkeying with the amount someone gets to vote is just begging for trouble, one adult one vote is the best way to go. The only way they should be able to lose it is if they commit a crime.

@slothman: It seems to me (correct me if I am wrong) that you are confusing between two things. (1) Eligibility to vote (2) amount of your vote.

I aver that anyone who contributes to society, however big or small, is eligible and hence gets a minimum. Keep in mind I am not making any value judgement on who is better or worse. I am making the judgement that you do not get to choose if you do not contribute.

I provided a few ways to determine who contributes and who does not. If you can come up with a better way, sure, please do and we can discuss it. I did mention that my way of determining is neither complete nor exact.

Amount of vote depends on education because i am making the assumption that it is hightly probable that a better educted man understands not just politics but everything else better than a less educated man. Hence, we should give more weight to his opinion.

betazed said:

Amount of vote depends on education because i am making the assumption that it is hightly probable that a better educted man understands not just politics but everything else better than a less educated man. Hence, we should give more weight to his opinion.

Click to expand...

There's a general trend for that but I wouldn't call it "high probability".

Besides should a man lose the oppurtunity t ohave his vote counted more simply because they choose to go straight to the workforce because the career they are interested in doesn't require a college education? I think not!

Perfection said:

There's a general trend for that but I wouldn't call it "high probability".

Click to expand...

A general trend is good enough.

Besides should a man lose the oppurtunity to have his vote counted more simply because they choose to go straight to the workforce because the career they are interested in doesn't require a college education? I think not!

Click to expand...

His vote is still counted. Since it is his own choice to relinquish his extra education/vote for his career then why not? My assumption is that it is not his inherent right to be treated as equal as everybody else. Can you dispute that?

betazed said:

A general trend is good enough.



His vote is still counted. Since it is his own choice to relinquish his extra education/vote for his career then why not? My assumption is that it is not his inherent right to be treated as equal as everybody else. Can you dispute that?

Click to expand...

Then you are saying that higher education is more important than civil contribution?

Paradigne said:

Then you are saying that higher education is more important than civil contribution?

Click to expand...

Yes (as far as voting rights are concerned).

You already know my stance, but I'll repeat it just in case there are any questions..

Every law abiding adult citizen should have one vote, period. Limits based on education, intelligence, or financial success are no less detrimental to a free democracy than are limits based on race, sex, or land ownership. Elitism is not freedom, it is tyranny.



-Elgalad

@Elgalad: Yes, I know your stance. And I expect that 95% of OT will vote no in this poll. But I am yet to find a single rational answer to the following question.

Elgalad said:

Limits based on education, [..snipped...] are no less detrimental to a free democracy than are limits based on race, sex, or land ownership.

Click to expand...

Why?

Agree with Elgalad
Are you just trying to provoke discussion or do you actually think this is a good idea?

Edit: Why? Because you don't need to go to school to have an opion, you don't need to go to school for taxes, gun control, war everthing in the government to effect you.

@Betazed

Because they deny the truth that all Persons are created equal.

Now some questions arise..

Q. "Aren't children as responsible as adults?"
A. "Yes, they are, When they become adults."

Q. "Aren't convicted felons equal to law abiding citizens and don't they deserve to vote as well?"
A. "They Did have the right to vote and voluntarily chose to violate the social contract, thus forfeiting that right."

We set these two limits because they are the only exceptions to the fact that all people are equal and deserve equal protection and representation (read: the right to vote) under the Law.


-Elgalad

Elgalad said:

@Betazed

Because they deny the truth that all Persons are created equal.

Click to expand...

Which is precisely what I deny. See assumption 2.

edit: LR says it better below...