In order to avoid the problems of a system where every fool gets the same vote as everybody else, I propose an improved version of democracy.
As it is right now, every vote has a value of 1 when counted. That is, if I vote for Joe, Joe’s vote tally increases by 1.
Why not have votes that have a value between 0 and 1? So, if I vote for Joe, Joe’s vote tally increases by w, where w is a value between 0 and 1.
Now, how do we decide how much value each person’s vote has?
There are many ways, but I propose the following:
- A quick multiple-choice test is administered in the voting booth.
- You take the test, vote, and the system registers your vote, along
with the value of your vote. Closer to 1 if you answered most questions
correctly, and closer to 0 if you answered most questions incorrectly.
The test should ideally consist of
- simple logic (analytical thinking) questions, like the ones given in the SAT’s,
- factual questions about the positions of the candidates on various issues.
If you can’t make logical deductions from simple statements, then your vote shouldn’t count very much. Also, if you don’t know what the positions of the various sides on issues are, then your vote shouldn’t count for much.
This test will have the added benefit of people trying to find out more about the candidates’ positions before the election. Parties may even give their members quick “cheat sheets” about the various candidates’ positions on issues, in order to have their votes count more.
Some things that the test satisfy:
- The test should be short. About 10 multiple choice questions.
- Each voter gets a different set of questions (chosen at random from a larger pool of questions), so that people who voted can’t go and tell others what the questions were.
- Each question is accepted by all parties, and they also agree on what the correct answer is.
- There should be a paper trail, to minimize fraud.
Of course, there are many problems with this proposal, both practical and theoretical/ideological.
Practical:
- How are the questions decided?
- People, who are already disinclined to vote, will be more so if there is a test involved (so be it)
- How do you go about convincing people to change from the current system to this one?
- etc
Theoretical/Ideological:
- The proposed system might not be better than today’s system. How do we measure that anyway?
- Some might say that people should have equal votes as a matter of principle
- etc
Since the proposed system has many practical problems that mean it most likely will never be implemented, I am more interested in the more theoretical and ideological problems.
For me, the analogy that works well is that we are all in a ship in the middle of a storm and the crew has died, and we must decide on the next course of action. Do we simply ask everyone on board what to do and take every one’s opinion with the same weight? Or do we give more weight to the opinions of people who are demonstrably more logical and knowledgeable than the rest?
On a final note, one of the benefits of the proposed system is that campaigns will be much more issues-based and logical, and not buzzword-filled attempts filled with non-sensical arguments. The reason is that with the current approach, a stupid TV ad can convince thousands of lemmings, but if the votes of those lemmings don’t count for much, the parties will have to try to convince the more logical and knowledgeable voters (like Dopers, for example )