Should we limit voting rights and change democracy?

[betazed]

...but it's then more likely to be unfair to individuals who do not contribute, for whatever reason.

Well, in my scheme there is no reason for anyone to not contribute, as I said so in Post #8. Since I assumed equal oppurtunity if you do not contribute I can only assume you chose to not contribute. Hence you have no right to vote.

So far, you argued that there may be exceptions within a society that contradict Assumption 3, but that these exceptions do not nullify the general trend. How about a society at large that contradicts your theory?

Well, if Nazi germany is your only example then you have no argument. That society was such an extreme case in so many ways that bringing it up in any debate will lead to a non-sequitur. You have to come up with better examples.

Sounds to me like the perfect plan to widen the power gap between the rich and the poor.

Can you explain logically how that will come about in my scheme?

let us not delude ourselves into pretending that it is anything close to democracy.

I do not care if it is not democracy if i consider it a system better than democracy.

On a side note, you have said it on more than one occasion that the greater education one has, the better a voter one is, as though it were inherent.

Actually, what I have assumed is that the more a person is educated the better he votes taking into account all aspects on the average. Which is my assumption 3. I have never said that this is inherently true. We of course need to test it (which is the reason it is an assumption).

I can educate myself with as much success as a college can, which is in fact, what I am currently doing with regard to various subjects. I would in fact be highly educated, but denied a vote in your system.

Yes, you can educate yourself. But I have no objective measure to determine how educated you are. Hence I have no choice but to go with a objective measure of education which is an university degree. Can this measure be wrong in individual cases? Of course. Will it be wrong on the average? i do not think so (which is assumption 3 all over again). And it only needs to be right on teh average for the system to work.

btw, you will not be denied a vote. You still get some vote. read the entire first post again.

@Igloodude: Excellent point. I did not think of it that way.

 

[Little Raven]

Heh. Didn't expect to see this bad boy back.

Just 10 votes for a Nobel prize winner? Hardly seems fair. The percentage of the population that wins a Nobel is indescribably miniscule. Shouldn't we adjust the scales accordingly? Give em a couple hundred at least, maybe a couple thousand. Make that Nobel worth something!

 

[El_Tigre]

Well, if Nazi germany is your only example then you have no argument. That society was such an extreme case in so many ways that bringing it up in any debate will lead to a non-sequitur. You have to come up with better examples.

My example is not Nazi Germany, but the Weimar Republic.

 

[Aramazd]

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

Every citizen should be able to vote because what the government does should affect them.

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

People have rights from the start. It is privileges that are given. Besides your saying that people don't have a right to a quick trial, freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and petition(you went 5 for 5 leaving out each part of the 1st amendement in the U.S. constitution.).

(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.

No way in hell. 1 person 1 vote. This just means the rich will get more votes. Not everybody can afford to go to college or get a masters or Ph.D

 

[IglooDame]

Every citizen should be able to vote because what the government does should affect them.

Which would mean that children, jailed prisoners, and all manner of illegal immigrants, people here on work visas, and possibly even Canadians should be able to vote. Are you sure about that line of thinking?

 

[downtown]

If you say so (which I must say is dubious - when have you last seen them driving any policy meausures?). however, are you ok with that? if you are then you should not have too much problem with this since all I am doing is formalizing their influence.

Of course they do. When senators dont know anything about something they have to vote on, they call an expert....a professor. When my representitve had to vote on online charter schools, he called my mom (who suggested legislation).
Almost all of my college professors advise senators, or the US state department.

Also, ever think of a think tank?

 

[betazed]

My example is not Nazi Germany, but the Weimar Republic.

I stand corrected; but my point still stands. That was an extreme situation and you have to provide other examples.

@abgar: please read the whole thread before replying. Each of those points have been dealt with before.

Just 10 votes for a Nobel prize winner? Hardly seems fair. The percentage of the population that wins a Nobel is indescribably miniscule. Shouldn't we adjust the scales accordingly? Give em a couple hundred at least, maybe a couple thousand. Make that Nobel worth something!

Well lets get the populace to agree in principle then we can work out the details.

btw, we are yet to hear your opinion on this one (I see you have not voted either). What do think about this idea?

@mattbrown: great to know senators take teh advice of experts (i doubt it but I will give you the benefit of the doubt). So, all i have done is that made senators have no choice but take the advice of experts. So you see I have just formalized what you think is good anyway. So why do you still object?

 

[amadeus]

Bill Gates doesn't have a doctoral degree, but he's contributed a lot more than a Nobel literary winner.

 

[betazed]

Bill Gates doesn't have a doctoral degree, but he's contributed a lot more than a Nobel literary winner.

Not belittling Gates contribution; but your comment only goes to show that you know little about Bill Gates contribution and even less about some Nobel prize winners. However, I am not surprised and it is irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Oruc]

No we shouldn't, unless you limit voting to people who agree with me then it is perfectly acceptable

 

[Caprice]

The only limitation I want to see is against all those damned dead people that vote in every election. My mom is still on the freaking voting registry at my precinct and she's been dead five years! You can't tell me that none of these now ineligable voters (dead people) don't end up voting from time to time... and my area can't be the only one with errors like that in the registry.

Like if you read a left wing (and therefore a high brow, intellectual) newspaper, like The Independent, you get a password for 10 votes, but if you read a right wing (and therefore a low brow, fish 'n' chips wrapper) newspaper,

I just wanted to point out that I kinda resent this. Not the voting points, but the idea that conservatives are less intelligent, or less intellectual, than their liberal counterparts.

It would seem to me that most "leftys" and "rightys" are equally intelligent, which doesn't say much for either IMO...

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

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

I absolutely disagree.

1) Democracy works better when people are INFORMED about how the issues will really affect them. Their education level has nothing to do with how informed they are about the issues. Read any MENSA bulletin letters and you will see how common it is for very smart and educated people to be really uninformed.

2) And I would even say it is more important to be able to judge the character of a candidate than understand the issues. If you can't judge someone's character then they can easily lie about the issues.

3) Also, if one thinks back in history it was the average worker, not the educated folks, in 1930's Germany who 'resisted' the Nazi regime the longest.

4) And education has alot to do with wealth. The more wealth, the more likely you are better educated. This is nothing but classism.

 

[JohnRM]

Yes, you can educate yourself. But I have no objective measure to determine how educated you are. Hence I have no choice but to go with a objective measure of education which is an university degree. Can this measure be wrong in individual cases? Of course. Will it be wrong on the average? i do not think so (which is assumption 3 all over again). And it only needs to be right on teh average for the system to work.

btw, you will not be denied a vote. You still get some vote. read the entire first post again.

In your system, no one will get more votes, most will get less. It is not going to be ten votes. You may call it that, but in reality it will be equivelant to what one vote is now. Those of us with one vote in your system will get what is equivelant to 1/10th of a vote. In effect, I would be denied a full vote (at least in my opinion).

In any case, your system leaves one dependent on the government for education and therefor dependent on the government for voting rights. I cannot accept that. If this system were implemented I would proceed to 'eliminate' the leaders of the government and their collaborators.

 

[Kayak]

In your system, no one will get more votes, most will get less. It is not going to be ten votes. You may call it that, but in reality it will be equivelant to what one vote is now. Those of us with one vote in your system will get what is equivelant to 1/10th of a vote. In effect, I would be denied a full vote (at least in my opinion).

In any case, your system leaves one dependent on the government for education and therefor dependent on the government for voting rights. I cannot accept that. If this system were implemented I would proceed to 'eliminate' the leaders of the government and their collaborators.

I agree. Think of all of the people who think their vote does not make a difference now, let along when it is onlt 1/10th its current value. I dare to say only those with "full" votes would bother.