How can we improve the current voting system? The fact that everyone has one vote regardless of how productive they are or how educated they are is stupid. Everyone is equal, but a power company that wants to build a nuclear power plant isn't going to hire a person with no education. They are going to hire a nuclear physics expert. Yes, the people are still equal, but one does know more. Here is what I suggest:

People will get a variable number of votes.

If you are a permanent resident, alien, or refugee you don't get to vote.

If you are a non-productive citizen on welfare (taking OUT of the system but not giving back, or, taking MORE out of the system than what you're putting INTO it [that is, getting more money from the government than what you pay in taxes]), you do not get to vote.

If you have a criminal record, you do not get to vote.

If you are a psychological problem (i.e. insane), you do not get to vote.


Now, at this point, every person has ONE vote. You can obtain extra votes this way:


If you are married WITH children, you get +1 vote because now you are now not just thinking about yourself, but about your family too.

If you have a master's degree or higher, you get +1 vote because you have a higher education.

If you served time in the military (2 or more years), you get +1 vote because you served your country in the Armed Forces.

If you spent three or more years outside of the country, you get +1 vote because you have experienced a different culture(s) and can now make judgment calls based on your experiences.

If you spent eight or more years outside of the country, you get +2 votes because you have even more experience to draw from.

If you are over 65 years of age, you get +1 vote because you are old and has a lot of experience in life to draw from.

If you pay more than $100,000 in taxes in a given year, you get +1 vote because you are paying most of the taxes and should have a greater say in how it is spent.


You can then institute a limit on certain categories. For example, you can say +1 vote for each master's degree up to 3 votes. You can also say the maximum number of votes a person can cast is 7.

Would be extremely against such an idea. Elections should give a representation of the wishes of the population, the whole population. Not a privileged and biased part thereof.

The comparison with a company hiring an expert is not valid. The voter is not someone performing the actual duty, your administration is doing that. The only task of the voter is to have an opinion about the results of a past administration and to choose between different available options. I'm not an expert in US politics, but i understand the choices are not that many so that really should not be a difficult task.

I'd grant you that there should be more experts in public office though... as the nuclear power plant wants a nuclear physics expert, i'd say that e.g. the president of the USA should have at least have a master's degree in economics, a PhD in history and most preferably a master's degree in one of the traditional sciences as physics or chemistry. What are the qualifications of Bush anyway?

Having said that, let's review your suggestions.

If you are a permanent resident, alien, or refugee you don't get to vote.
Ok, let's imagine that i'd move to the USA and become a productive member of society with the intention to build a life there, paying my taxes. That would make me a permanent resident, yes? If so, do i not have a right to voice my opinion in public affairs as a, albeit new, tax paying, law abiding and permanent member?

If you are a non-productive citizen on welfare (taking OUT of the system but not giving back, or, taking MORE out of the system than what you're putting INTO it [that is, getting more money from the government than what you pay in taxes]), you do not get to vote.
What if you are on welfare because of an accident? What if you were a productive member of society for decades before that accident?


If you have a criminal record, you do not get to vote.
What if you were actually innocent? This restriction would even frustrate me more than jail time.

If you are a psychological problem (i.e. insane), you do not get to vote.
Where do you draw the line? Does a mental illness count a psychological problem? Does Reagan still get to vote?

If you are married WITH children, you get +1 vote because now you are now not just thinking about yourself, but about your family too.
So what about non-married couples with children. They do not care for their offspring? What about single parents?

If you have a master's degree or higher, you get +1 vote because you have a higher education.
I'm surprised that you did not introduce a difference in the university issuing the master's degree.

If you served time in the military (2 or more years), you get +1 vote because you served your country in the Armed Forces.
What if you were in the military, you got shot and you spent the rest of your life on welfare?

If you spent three or more years outside of the country, you get +1 vote because you have experienced a different culture(s) and can now make judgment calls based on your experiences.

If you spent eight or more years outside of the country, you get +2 votes because you have even more experience to draw from.

Even if that country was e.g. China... or worse, France ;)? No fear for foreign influences here? I'm surprised, once again.


If you are over 65 years of age, you get +1 vote because you are old and has a lot of experience in life to draw from.
And at 64 you definitely lack this experience? The voting behaviour of a 98 year old in a closed nursing home should be valued higher than that of 45 year old single mother?

If you pay more than $100,000 in taxes in a given year, you get +1 vote because you are paying most of the taxes and should have a greater say in how it is spent.
Hmm, the price of an extra vote is $100,000 in taxes. This brings about interesting possibilities...

Ok, let's imagine that i'd move to the USA and become a productive member of society with the intention to build a life there, paying my taxes. That would make me a permanent resident, yes? If so, do i not have a right to voice my opinion in public affairs as a, albeit new, tax paying, law abiding and permanent member? No you don't. You are not a citizen. I don't believe even Netherlands or the European Union would allow permanent residents or aliens to vote. Choosing the direction of a country is for its citizens, not the guests.

What if you are on welfare because of an accident? What if you were a productive member of society for decades before that accident? There are, of course, exceptions. Why do you want to bring up exceptions all the time? We are not discussing exceptions. We are discussing lazy ass morons that sit on the corner of a street that don't even want to hand out flyers for money because they can make more money feeding off other people. See *.

What if you were actually innocent? Then your quarrel is with the judicial process, not with the voting system I'm proposing. See *.

Where do you draw the line? Does a mental illness count a psychological problem? Does Reagan still get to vote? This is open for discussion. And no, I don't believe Reagan should be allowed to vote in his current condition. See *.

I'm surprised that you did not introduce a difference in the university issuing the master's degree. That isn't important. See *.

What if you were in the military, you got shot and you spent the rest of your life on welfare? That is an exception and not the rule of thumb. See *.

Even if that country was e.g. China... or worse, France ESPECIALLY then. If you were to visit Canada for 5 years, well, you're not gettting as much as you could have gotten by visiting say, Denmark.

No fear for foreign influences here? I'm surprised, once again. Hell no. I'm a foreigner, remember?

And at 64 you definitely lack this experience? The voting behaviour of a 98 year old in a closed nursing home should be valued higher than that of 45 year old single mother? OK, let us then say "senior citizens."



* You are separating fly shit from pepper. I don't want to discuss the DETAILS of such a system. I want to know WHY you would be opposed or why you would be for such a system. The details are irrelevant at this point. And even on that topic you're chasing the wind by grabbing at every possible exception of the general rule of thumb.

Someone should run a simulation (similar to a military's war games) to see the viability of such a system. Certainly a better idea than some of the world's governments. (Ie: iran's theocracy; saudi arabia's monarchy; assorted dictatorships)

This is the kind of situation that just itches for formulas. Give a foreign country a difference in culture constant. Canada recieves a two, for their difference, albeit slight, in culture from America. Multiply that by the number of years lived in that country. Japan(please, suggest something else, this is a bad example), say a ten for difference.
Educational votes are awarded per degree earned, with each succesive degree earning more votes, because of the base earned education recieved from said education.
Register for potential citizenship for a single (1) vote, until you become a citizen, then all citizen vote modifiers apply to you.
Welfare: Votes(when productive member of society)=Votes(when nonproductive member of society) until present production negates past production.
Get rid of the senior citizen vote. Experience is extremely difficult to quantify.
Draw the line at felonies, as opposed to a criminal record. Felonies=no votes. I think this has already been instituted. How about negative votes for drug consumption? :m:
I'm not a psychologist, could we get some in here for an informed opinion?
Military duty=infinite pension/welfare. Duh. Love the warrior, hate the war.


What you seem to be describing is more of a meritocracy than a democracy. How about we all vote on each proposition? That then leads to vote delegation, letting people vote for us.

Move this thread over to world events and politics, please?

I'm not a psychologist, could we get some in here for an informed opinion?

why yes!
you guys are the scum of the earth and do not deserve to live

:D

move b3nkay and jerreck over to the nuthouse, please?

Well, I don't think we should go with negative votes. And I actually don't support current laws with respect to drugs.


This isn't a meritocracy. A meritocracy is where the intelligent lead. I see no such case with this system.

Originally posted by Jerrek

If you are a non-productive citizen on welfare (taking OUT of the system but not giving back, or, taking MORE out of the system than what you're putting INTO it [that is, getting more money from the government than what you pay in taxes]), you do not get to vote.

If you have a criminal record, you do not get to vote.
This would effectively eliminate minorities and the lower class from the voting process.
Its reminiscent of the South's Jim Crow laws.

Originally posted by Jerrek
If you have a master's degree or higher, you get +1 vote because you have a higher education.

If you spent three or more years outside of the country, you get +1 vote because you have experienced a different culture(s) and can now make judgment calls based on your experiences.

If you spent eight or more years outside of the country, you get +2 votes because you have even more experience to draw from.

If you pay more than $100,000 in taxes in a given year, you get +1 vote because you are paying most of the taxes and should have a greater say in how it is spent.

Generally, you've got to have money to do these things.

So basically, under your system, if you're rich you get a whole bunch of votes, if you're poor you probably don't get any. This is called a plutocracy.

you mean a jerreckocracy? (could we have hitler back please!)

:D

I thought a meritocracy was where the people with the most value to society were the ones who made the decisions. FYI: I don't support current drug laws either, but drugs do wreak havoc with the nervous system, and as such debilitate the decision making process. And, if we are going to add votes, habits that are disapproved of (I say disapproved, I mean habits that society see as needing discouragement) shouldn't be given extra votes, and they can't be left alone, so we introduce negative votes. But, since votes are things, they cannot go negative. So, 0 is our practical limit for least number of votes. However, imagine some unhappy person is set at zero for habits. that person needs one vote. One must then become a practical bottom limit.


Oh, BTW, from dictionary.com:
mer·i·toc·ra·cy
n. pl. mer·i·toc·ra·cies
A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.


A group of leaders or officeholders selected on the basis of individual ability or achievement.


Leadership by such a group.

This would effectively eliminate minorities and the lower class from the voting process. So you're saying that the minorities are inferior human beings who are always in need for welfare and/or crime?

Why would this eliminate minorities? I'd think that based on the meritocratical system, people are favored over groups. Also, I don't know what minorities you are talking about. For instance, in Oregon, many Indians work at Intel, (I go to school with a bunch of their kids), but they make gobs of money. On the other hand, the illegal Mexican immigrants are working for less than standard wages, and even the legal immigrants don't make that much. However the US (supposedly) pours money into programs for education for minority children, in order that they can (I guess) contribute more to the US society?
(I'm not a fan of the meritocracy, believe me)

I missed the topic of taxes.
No. This is absolutely not okay. Having more votes becuase you pay more taxes is tantamount to buying votes. No.

So you're objecting to a system that allows people to exercise authority in proportion to what they contributed in the first place?

Consider this. There are three people. One person contributes $50, one $30, and one $20. What is wrong with letting the one person exercise more authority? Much like stock in a company. If I own 0.0001%, my vote is negligble. If I own 51% of the company, my vote is very important.

What is wrong with that? Or do you insist on a system that allows OTHER people decide how YOUR money should be spent?

Yeah, but taxes are based on how much you make. Besides, the principle of democracy (as I see it) was to make all people equal, and buying votes just doesn't work out, man. Now, if you were going to run a plutocracy, that's your call, but a plutocracy is even more off than a meritocracy.
Letting people decide how to spend my money? Isn't that what political pork is?

so ahh who are the high achievers in american society? those of an east and south asian background? they routinely get the highest scores in tests yes? so ahh.... "welcome to the whitehouse president kwan!"

hmm! maybe i can live with that!

:D

having a prez based solely on achievements, wow, then we leave democracy all together.

ahh jerreck! apologies for being so rude!
sieg heil!

phew!
:(

now _that_ was rude.

Originally posted by b3nkay
having a prez based solely on achievements, wow, then we leave democracy all together.

ah but i think you guys have already left democracy

we have. I was grasping at straws.

Originally posted by Jerrek
So you're saying that the minorities are inferior human beings who are always in need for welfare and/or crime?
look at the statistics for the percentage of African-Americans convicted of crimes in the US. Its a significant percentage. The same for welfare.
Not because they are inferior but because they have been systematically discriminated against for hundreds of years...laws like the ones you advocate are in fact very similiar to the Jim Crow laws of the old South which used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting. I'm assuming you're advocating these things for other reasons, but they'd still have this effect(although not to the extent they did back then, we have made some progress)

But regardless of the race issue, you accept that your system basically is a plutocracy?

I was playing devils advocate!
But yes, I do. How does anarchy sound?

You are separating fly shit from pepper. I don't want to discuss the DETAILS of such a system. I want to know WHY you would be opposed or why you would be for such a system. The details are irrelevant at this point. And even on that topic you're chasing the wind by grabbing at every possible exception of the general rule of thumb.

Putting down every possible exception would take me an eternity. Moreover, it are these exceptions that make up one of the reasons i've against your system.

You'd like to see that the influence people have in a country is proportional to the effort they put in making that country run and/or protecting it. It's an idea. Even one i could agree with, except for the fact that no two people have the same opportunities. E.g. people born with a genetic disease would risk of being denied several "voting points", not because they do not have the will to make a difference but just because their start in life is more crappy than yours or mine and as such they could never reach an average level of productivity. Same goes for who happen to have very lousy parents... well, and the list can go on and on. You get my drift, i'm sure.

These maybe exceptions to your general rules, granted, but in the system you are proposing the fact stands that they who, due to circumstances beyond their control could have a lesser vote point than you or me, while nonetheless they are sharing the same society with us and who'd have to live with the decisions made by politicians voted in office by others. With respect to my own personal beliefs, that would be unreconcilable. Which makes this a subjective argument, rather than a rational one, i'll have to admit.

Mind you, if everyone is born with the same capabilities and if everyone is offered the same opportunities, then you'd only have one's (lack of) effort holding one back to reach all of the goals the system would have set to gain extra points. In this impossible scenario, i could possibly agree with you.

as always one is free to interpret the opening post anyway one see fit.
what jerreck wants or does not want is irrelevant. the choice to have an irrational discussion is his but there is no reason others must follow suit

Democracy is a nonsensical idea.

prozak baby! i missed you so!

Unfortunately democracy means everyone has an equal right to vote. Everyone, every citizen. Jerrek didn't improve democracy, he took it away. Therefore Jerrek is a dumbass, and if he lived in his own nation he would not be allowed to vote.

*bows*

Thank you.





edit: spookz, you're awesome.

How can we improve the current voting system?

We can improve the voting system by discarding votes made my individual citizens and transfering the voting burden to corporations based on their willingness to participate as measured by their financial contributions.

and support a real 'buy your vote here! discounts!' policy? No thanks. I don't think it's even a democracy if a president has to be nominated by a party. Of course, I'm a capitalist anarchist/arnarchic democrat.