Should Individual Votes Be Weighted ?

[Conrod]

In deciding who feel should be allowed to vote, it appears that you are placing emphasis on just the economic decisions that an elected party may make. What about all other aspects of the party manifesto?

The government is, in effect, just an elected executive board of a big company - UK PLC. What they do all comes down to money.

[mart]

Everything cost money, but it is their “promised” policies that win or lose votes. There are numerous examples where people do not focus on the cost, but on what the policies are. Those that were against the Iraq invasion no doubt felt that way for reasons other than financial.

[HeadingNorth]

Because that's how democracy works?

 

His entire argument is to abolish democracy and replace it with some form of plutocracy - the richer you are the more say you will have.

[Guest sibon]

Your premise might have some merit if it were even remotely true that higher rate taxpayers are the most important people in society. There are countless productive members of society on low wages, or no wages. Are you really proposing that volunteer carers should be denied the same rights as a hedge fund manager?

 

The flip side is true as well. There are a great many higher rate taxpayers who contribute very little to the national interest. You will find many of these inside the investment banks. Ask Adair Turner if you want more details, he wrote very eloquently about them.

 

So, your idea is a pretty flawed one. It does nicely illustrate the fact that some Tory voters cannot see beyond income when measuring the worth of a person. Mercifully, many other, more open minded people can.

[Conrod]

His entire argument is to abolish democracy and replace it with some form of plutocracy - the richer you are the more say you will have.

Almost there, but not necessarily.

 

I don't suggest that there is no ceiling on it (though it's interesting to leave that out to start and see the responses that have come in so far), but I most certainly do think that, for example, the vote of a teacher, surgeon or time-served plumber, each of whom pays tax and contributes to society, should count for much more than the vote of somebody who chooses never to work, or skits from brief job to brief job unable to hold down worthwhile employment.

Purely on tax contribution? Maybe that's one way of measuring it, but what it comes down to is that one person's vote should not necessarily be as important as the next.

[HeadingNorth]

Such systems have been used before in various places; they are invariably even worse than a pure democracy where each person gets exactly one vote.

 

It's been pointed out by a great many people in the past; democracy is the worst system of government, except for every other one anybody ever tried.

[Phanerothyme]

John Stuart Mill suggested a similar thing, but considered votes from university graduates to be more valuable.

 

With the ubiquity of degrees these days, perhaps people with a PhD should get more heavily weighted votes. Anyone without a university education should perhaps be barred from voting.

 

Or perhaps we should simply sell votes on ebay?

[sccsux]

Does it really? Are you saying that democracy gives greater vote power to those who don't contribute to society?

 

No. It gives power equally (or should).

[MrSmith]

Almost there, but not necessarily.

 

I don't suggest that there is no ceiling on it (though it's interesting to leave that out to start and see the responses that have come in so far), but I most certainly do think that, for example, the vote of a teacher, surgeon or time-served plumber, each of whom pays tax and contributes to society, should count for much more than the vote of somebody who chooses never to work, or skits from brief job to brief job unable to hold down worthwhile employment.

Purely on tax contribution? Maybe that's one way of measuring it, but what it comes down to is that one person's vote should not necessarily be as important as the next.

 

It isn’t now, there are only a minority of voter who’s vote really counts for anything. They all live in the swing seat areas.

Whenever it comes, the next general election will be won and lost in roughly 100 key constituencies. These are the people that count in the system we have.

 

But I do agree that non contributors to society and criminals shouldn’t have a right to vote. Voting should be one of the perks of being a good citizen.

[Mr Bojangles]

John Stuart Mill suggested a similar thing, but considered votes from university graduates to be more valuable.

 

With the ubiquity of degrees these days, perhaps people with a PhD should get more heavily weighted votes. Anyone without a university education should perhaps be barred from voting.

 

Or perhaps we should simply sell votes on ebay?

You know, the expression 'many a true word spoken in jest' does spring to mind.

 

Would the country be a better place, would our politicians be under a more effective leash, if we limited voting by either educational standard or some sort of compulsory intellect test?