# Improved version of democracy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 10, 2004, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954 "2004-09-10T20:44:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2004, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/21 "2004-09-10T23:15:17Z")
> [@Voodoochile](#): > > Um…because there is no such thing? If its been made into an insult, it is accompanied by other religous beliefs, such as God as well. The belief in an intellectual elite is a secular religon I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing. When I hear the “intellectual elite” I think of the country’s academics (university professors, scientists, researchers, etc). And they “exist”. I’m not thinking about a ruling class, I’m just thinking of a group of people. If “intellectual elite” means something else, I am not aware of it. > [@](#): > > I was approaching this whole thing thinking you were honestly trying to think of ways to get the electorate to better inform itself, but its starting to seem as if youre trying to use your imagination (not intellect) to come up with ways to give some theoretical but non-existant group disproportionate control over others. Again, I’m not trying to give the country’s academics control of the country. A large percentage of the population is just as smart as academics. It’s just that a certain percentage of the population is not that smart and their vote should be discounted accordingly. Also, if we want to take intelligence out of the test, and leave just the factual questions about policy, that might work just as well. And this would have the benefit of the electorate trying to improve itself to have its vote count for more. I’m not even sure this system would work or be better than the current system. I just had an idea for a “weighted vote”, and thought to bounce the idea off SDMB folks to see what the flaws might be. ---
**Author:** ![Voodoochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/898d66/32.png) [@Voodoochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voodoochile)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2004, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/22 "2004-09-10T23:25:40Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > So, if Joe says, “I’m going to increase jobs by implementing plan X” and Jack says “I’m going to increase jobs by implementing plan Y”, the voters get to decide which plan might work better, since they are both in the spirit of what they want, which is more jobs. Well, but there would be nothing stopping constituents from discussing/thinking up among themselves these same x and y and instructing Joe or Jack to submit it for a vote in the house or senate. Also, if these were critically thinking consituents, they would know that since both Joe and Jack are politicians, that they are full of shit; if you are a rational person, you have to assume by default that what a poltician tells you is bullshit, that they are only telling you what you want to hear. After all, they are biological organisms as well and so are pursuing their own self interest. Also, if you are rational But Im not seriously advocating forcing reps to vote as their contituents tell them, I was partly using that as a vehicle to illustrate why people are less and less involved in the process and less and less inclined to inform themselves; it doesnt make any goddamn difference. Everyone could read up on the issues tomorrow, and we’d still have the same two idiots to choose from. Sure, you can vote someone out of office, but if their actions put your business under, its a little late. If their actions put a relative in jail for hurting only themselves, your relative isnt going to be released after the election. The more issues in our day to day lives that the government interferes in and tries to control, the less and less thinking about those issues people are going to do. The more responsibility government assumes, the less and less responsibility the people are going to take. I would think any rational person could understand that. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2004, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/23 "2004-09-10T23:26:14Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > Lets say I’m a farmer. I have alot of concerns about farm policy. But while I’m great at farming and know what I want from my government to farm well, maybe I’m not great at abstract logic and I don’t know as much as I should about the candidates policy in regard to, say, Taiwan. Why should my vote, my voice, count for less? That’s a good point. I should think about this one, but in general, I would be like to be able to distinguish between cases like these, and cases where someone votes for plan X for education because he was misled by politicians’ fallacies. Maybe, from a practical standpoint, it might not be possible to distinguish between these two cases (your farmer vs the easily misled citizen), so maybe the whole system is impossible to implement. (Need more time to think about how to incorporate your farmer into the scheme) > [@](#): > > The idea behind democracy is that we can express these desires and ideals equally. That’s why we have one person one vote. Democracy assumes self rule and _equality_ of power as a given and a fundamental right. It’s a right people have struggled and died for, even in this country, (Martin Luther King, Jr. for one) and I don’t want to take it away from anybody, even if it could be proved that this would lead to better government, which I’m not convinced is true. So, for you, democracy is an end in itself, and just as a matter of principal you will not accept alternatives. That is fine, and this is one of the possibilities I raised in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2004, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/24 "2004-09-10T23:36:44Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > Lets say I’m a farmer. I have alot of concerns about farm policy. But while I’m great at farming and know what I want from my government to farm well, maybe I’m not great at abstract logic and I don’t know as much as I should about the candidates policy in regard to, say, Taiwan. Why should my vote, my voice, count for less? OK, I’ve thought of one thing against your farmer. If all you care about is farming, and you choose candidate A based only on his farm policies, you are helping him get elected, and it is possible that candidate A’s plans will be disastrous for the economy as a whole, or disastrous in terms of national security. So, you \*should \* be informed about what other plans the candidates have, because it is better for the country, and for you (a recession hurts everyone). So, if you have a very narrow focus in terms of what you know about candidates’ positions, then maybe your vote should be scaled down. ---
**Author:** ![Voodoochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/898d66/32.png) [@Voodoochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voodoochile)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2004, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/25 "2004-09-10T23:52:19Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > OK, I’ve thought of one thing against your farmer. If all you care about is farming, and you choose candidate A based only on his farm policies, you are helping him get elected, and it is possible that candidate A’s plans will be disastrous for the economy as a whole, or disastrous in terms of national security. > > So, you \*should \* be informed about what other plans the candidates have, because it is better for the country, and for you (a recession hurts everyone). So, if you have a very narrow focus in terms of what you know about candidates’ positions, then maybe your vote should be scaled down. I disagree. Its irrational to think that anyone is going to be so stupid as to not vote for their own self interest. Say the farmer is given massive subsidies, say that causes a recession; well because of the recession, farm equipment prices and labor prices will drop, thus giving the farmer not only the subsidies but also the lower prices. Its a win-win situation for the farmer, and the long term effects that ~are~ harmful to the farmer may not make themselves felt for years, long after he is dead in which case he doesnt give a shit. The rational solution is to take away govts ability to have a ‘farm policy’ in the first place. Your main OP deals with limiting the participants in democracy, and I think the impetus behind that is the increasing scope of democracy. Limit the scope of what people can vote on, and Ill agree; limit the people who can vote or how much their vote counts and I dont. ---
**Author:** ![Purd\_Werfect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e47c2d/32.png) [@Purd\_Werfect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Purd_Werfect)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/26 "2004-09-11T00:03:16Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > That’s a good point. > I should think about this one, but in general, I would be like to be able to distinguish between cases like these, and cases where someone votes for plan X for education because he **was misled by politicians’ fallacies.** Bolding mine. One side’s fallacy is another sides’s truth. Using your example, plan x for education may fix some problems while creating others. Then again, it may fail miserably at its intended goal, but have some unintended benefits. The thing is, none of the issues that we look at when it comes to voting are black and white. And what some see as beneficial, others may see as harmful, whether it be for moral, cultural or economic reasons. So who creates this test? Who decides what will be right and what will be wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/27 "2004-09-11T00:04:37Z")
> [@Voodoochile](#): > > I disagree. Its irrational to think that anyone is going to be so stupid as to not vote for their own self interest. 1. But, if candidate A convinces you, via fallacies, that his plan is best for you, then you vote for him thinking that you are voting for your own self interest, when it’s possible that candidate B’s plan was better for you. 2. Many people have a self-interest in Bush getting re-elected because their taxes will go down or stay low, but will vote for Kerry anyway. Many people have a self interest in Kerry getting re-elected because of some union benefits, but will vote for Bush anyway. > [@](#): > > The rational solution is to take away govts ability to have a ‘farm policy’ in the first place. That may be true, but that is another issue. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/28 "2004-09-11T00:16:12Z")
> [@Purd Werfect](#): > > The thing is, none of the issues that we look at when it comes to voting are black and white. And what some see as beneficial, others may see as harmful, whether it be for moral, cultural or economic reasons. Yes, most issues are not black and white. Yes, there are many sides to each issue. But, there are still stupid people making decisions for the wrong reasons. I didn’t want to bring current politics into this, but the GOP has been trying (successfully, I think) to portray Kerry as a rich elitist. They even created [Kerryopoly](http://www.gop.com/kerryopoly) to show people how richly he lives. The fact is, though, that Bush is quite rich himself, and his lifestyle is way out of touch with the lifestyle of the average American. So, how can the GOP be getting away with this “accusation”? The answer is that a small segment of the population gets swayed by such “arguments” and we would be better off if their votes were discounted because they are idiots. By the way, if someone has a similarly mind-numbing example from Kerry’s side, please add it here, but it will only prove further that there are people who do not posess critical thinking abilities past a 5-year-old. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/29 "2004-09-11T00:42:57Z")
There are two big problems that I see with the OP’s idea: (1) How does one decide what questions are on the test? There would be endless fights about bias, what is important, etc. And, then there would be the possibility for example that those with more money could pay to get “coached” in order to do better on the test. (2) The principle of one man, one vote is not based on the idea that this produces the most intelligent outcome, the best policy, etc. It is based on the idea that everyone should have an equal say in collective decisions that we make as a society. Or to put it another way, people vote in large part on the basis of their own self-interest and the idea is that everybody should get an equal say so that one person’s self-interest (or perhaps more precisely, one’s perception of one’s own self interest) isn’t weighted more highly than another’s. I sympathize with the OP’s frustration at the stupidity of the electorate. However, I really think you have to go to cures that are short of giving up on one-man one-vote because I think it is a fundamental tenet for a good reason. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/30 "2004-09-11T00:46:57Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > So, for you, democracy is an end in itself, and just as a matter of principal you will not accept alternatives. That is fine, and this is one of the possibilities I raised in the OP. You’re right, democracy is an end in itself for me, but not just as an axiom, but for practical reasons as well. While I am well aware that Democracy is a highly flawed system I support it for two reasons. First, because I think people have a fundamental right to have an equal say in their own government. Secondly, because I’m not convinced another system would be any better. Let’s look at the two elements of your test. 1.) a test of reasoning skills. In his polemic “Why Johnny can’t add” Morris Kline wondered at the common belief that people who are good at math (as he most definitely was) are smart about everything else as well. People with highly developed abstract reasoning skills are often cluless about the way people behave. The latter seems just as important, if not much more important, for making wise political decisions. Mathematicians can be as easily hoodwinked as anybody else. There are plenty of abstract thinkers with wrong, bizarre political ideas. The Unabomber for one (PhD in math) and Bobby Fischer for another. Obviously these are extreme examples, but my point is facility with abstract concepts does not necessarily translate into political wisdom. 2.) Knowledge of the candidates stance on the issues. Obviously voters should be as informed as possible about the candidates stance on the issues, and I am just as concerned with the sorry state of political discourse in this country as you are. However, I think most people have a general idea about Bush and Kerry. They’ve had four years of Bush, and if Kerry hasn’t made his actual differences with Bush clear, that’s the candidate’s fault, not the voters. I’m not sure if simply knowing their policies better would really improve people’s voting habits. People would just crib for the test, and then vote the way they were leaning anyway. Other things. Smart, informed people can be just as prone to irrational prejudice as the ignorant and stupid. Look at the shouting matches in the pit or on the cable yelling shows. Back to the farmer example. Yes your right, my farmer should be thinking about the country as a whole and not just his own interests. But what if he isn’t? You’re test won’t screen for that. Furthermore, people weigh issues for very personal reasons, and I’m not sure how to tell them they’re wrong, or whether they should be (partially) disenfranchised for doing so. Take someone involved in the abortion debate, on either side. Say they are so committed to this that they only consider it in their voting. Maybe this is bad, but it’ their choice and I’m not sure how to change it, other than by denying them the vote altogether, which you don’t want to do. Also the more I think about it the more I think you were right to challenge my phrase “intellectual elite.” I stand by what I said, but it’s a stupid loaded phrase and distracts from the discussion. Believe me I really am concerned by the manipulation and nonsense of modern American politics, and I’ve had thoughts along the lines of the OP myself. I just think the cure would be worse than the disease. ---
**Author:** ![Purd\_Werfect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e47c2d/32.png) [@Purd\_Werfect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Purd_Werfect)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/31 "2004-09-11T00:47:21Z")
That might make the spin change more towards issues rather than towards the candidates morality or comfy berth or whatever, but issues get spun all the time. I still want to know where this test comes from and what’s deemed factually correct in a political sense. [ul] [li]The economy is benefitted by outsourcing jobs to other countries.[/li][li]Abortion is best left as a choice for an indivdual woman to make regarding her body.[/li][li]The war against terrorism is practically undefinable, and therefore unwinnable, as it will never be clear when it has succeeded.[/li][/ul] Looking at those three statements, there is going to be people on each side saying they are factually true, and people on the opposing side saying that they are factually false. And both sides will have some factual evidence to back their viewpoint. I thought the reason that we had a democratic republic is because we can’t all spend the time necessary to become fully educated on every issue. Instead, we support the candidates that we do because their viewpoint of the world most closley aligns with how we think things should go. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/32 "2004-09-11T01:06:23Z")
> [@Purd Werfect](#): > > I still want to know where this test comes from Some bi-partisan committee (like the committee for Presidential debates) > [@](#): > > and what’s deemed factually correct in a political sense. > [ul] > [li]The economy is benefitted by outsourcing jobs to other countries.[/li][li]Abortion is best left as a choice for an indivdual woman to make regarding her body.[/li][li]The war against terrorism is practically undefinable, and therefore unwinnable, as it will never be clear when it has succeeded.[/li][/ul] Of course, questions like these will not be on the test. I was thinking more along the lines of - George Bush’s stance on abortion is a) … b) … c) … - John Kerry’s stance on gun control legislation is a) … b) … c) … Faced with questions like these, people might try to read up on what the candidates’ positions are. Some may be surprised, for example, at Kerry’s stance on gun control. Some may be surprised at Bush’s stance on abortion. This information might change who they end up voting for. Now, the Right portrays Kerry as a liberal who wants to take away everyone’s guns. Since Kerry doesn’t want to do that, if that question was on the test all the people on the Right who believe it will get their vote reduced. So, the GOP will have to tell the truth about what Kerry’s position on gun control is. Similarly with Bush and the Democratic party. In general, parties will not be able to create false impressions about the opposition, because that will reduce the votes of their members. Of course, this is all in theory, and I don’t know how well it would work in practice, but that’s the idea behind it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/33 "2004-09-11T03:33:53Z")
What you are describing is known as “plural voting” or “weighted voting.” It was proposed by John Stuart Mill, and Mark Twain wrote a short story based on the idea, “The Curious Republic of Gondour.” You can read the whole thing here: [http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/gondour.html](http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/gondour.html) In Twain’s version, everybody has at least one vote, but you can be awarded additional votes based on property and academic achievements: > [@](#): > > I found that the nation had at first tried universal suffrage pure and simple, but had thrown that form aside because the result was not satisfactory. It had seemed to deliver all power into the hands of the ignorant and non-tax-paying classes; and of a necessity the responsible offices were filled from these classes also. > > A remedy was sought. The people believed they had found it; not in the destruction of universal suffrage, but in the enlargement of it. It was an odd idea, and ingenious. You must understand, the constitution gave every man a vote; therefore that vote was a vested right, and could not be taken away. But the constitution did not say that certain individuals might not be given two votes, or ten! So an amendatory clause was inserted in a quiet way; a clause which authorized the enlargement of the suffrage in certain cases to be specified by statute. To offer to “limit” the suffrage might have made instant trouble; the offer to “enlarge” it had a pleasant aspect. But of course the newspapers soon began to suspect; and then out they came! It was found, however, that for once, - and for the first time in the history of the republic - property, character, and intellect were able to wield a political influence; for once, money, virtue, and intelligence took a vital and a united interest in a political question. For once these powers went to the “primaries” in strong force; for once the best men in the nation were put forward as candidates for that parliament whose business it should be to enlarge the suffrage. The weightiest half of the press quickly joined forces with the new movement, and left the other half to rail about the proposed “destruction of the liberties” of the bottom layer of society, the hitherto governing class of the community. > > The victory was complete. The new law was framed and passed. Under it every citizen, however poor or ignorant, possessed one vote, so universal suffrage still reigned; but if a man possessed a good common-school education and no money, he had two votes; a high-school education gave him four; if he had property likewise, to the value of three thousand _sacos,_ he wielded one more vote; for every fifty thousand _sacos_ a man added to his property, he was entitled to another vote; a university education entitled a man to nine votes, even though he owned no property. Therefore, learning being more prevalent and more easily acquired than riches, educated men became a wholesome check upon wealthy men, since they could outvote them. Learning goes usually with uprightness, broad views, and humanity; so the learned voters, possessing the balance of power, became the vigilant and efficient protectors of the great lower rank of society. I would be against such a system, for the following reasons: 1. We don’t need it. Under our present American political system, persons of superior wealth and superior education **already have** political influence far out of proportion to their numbers. Perhaps in Twain’s time “the responsible offices were filled” from “the ignorant and non-tax-paying classes” – the legacy of Jeffersonian-Jacksonian populist democracy,the “spoils system,” and corrupt urban machine politics – but that has not been true for some time. Ever since the Progressive era of the early 20th Century, government in America has been generally acknowledged to be a business for highly educated professionals. How many elected officials or senior civil servants do not have college degrees nowadays? The most important ones mostly have graduate degrees – and come from a background of wealth and privilege, like both Bush and Kerry. Furthermore, the propertied and the educated wield disproportionate influence in the elections themselves because – no cite, but I remember this from college polysci – they are “sociological stars” whose opinions influence the voting decisions of poorer and less-educated persons who happen to know them, or know people who know them. Still furthermore, money plays a decisive role in American politics nowadays, and who do you think is in a position to make the biggest campaign contributions? 2. The whole idea is misconceived. In a democracy, a voter is **not** allowed to vote so that he or she can give the body politic the benefit of his or her wisdom, such as it is. He/she is allowed to vote in order to make his/her **will** known and acted upon, and to defend and protect his/her own **interests.** The assumption is that in a democracy or republic the state belongs to its citizens, and **we are all citizens equally,** all equally people and all equally owners of our government, even if we are not equal in any other respect. And it really does make a difference whether a given group is allowed to vote or not. When women got the vote in 1920, we did not get the compassionate, pacifist social utopia some suffragists had predicted. But we did get a society where the law and public policies became (by gradual stages) much fairer to women than they had been before, because now politicians had to worry about getting support from female voters. In South Africa under Apartheid, the whites, who could vote, were effectively living in a free republican society where they enjoyed civil liberties, while the blacks, who could not, were effectively living under a dictatorship. Political scientist Robert Dahl studied these issues in depth in his classic _Polyarchy_ (1971). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/34 "2004-09-11T04:10:54Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > I was thinking more along the lines of > > - George Bush’s stance on abortion is > a) … > b) … > c) … > > - John Kerry’s stance on gun control legislation is > a) … > b) … > c) … How much detail does one have to give before the question is deemed “correct” ? Would hitting the right buzzwords count? And are these questions subject to review and disclosure, or are they sprung on the voters on election day, like a pop quiz? If the questions are revealed in advance (or leaked), what’s to stop a party from announcing the “answers” in advance, to be copied verbatim by the voters? If an acceptable answer to 1a is “States decide” (probably not an inaccurate aspect of Bush’s abortion stance) and the voters can just pencil this in without bothering to analyze it any deeper, what has your test really accomplished? If anything, your approach makes voting more of a hassle, which I predict will drive turnout even lower. You’d be better off advocating some sort of _Starship Troopers_ plan, where two years of government/military service is required for the franchise, and no applicant over 18 can be refused. I predict your chance of getting the necessary consitutional amendment conservatively at zero, though. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/35 "2004-09-11T12:58:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What you are describing is known as “plural voting” or “weighted voting.” It was proposed by John Stuart Mill, and Mark Twain wrote a short story based on the idea, “The Curious Republic of Gondour.” You can read the whole thing here: [site: Robert A. Heinlein - Archives - Twain's "Gondour"](http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/gondour.html) In Twain’s version, everybody has at least one vote, but you can be awarded additional votes based on property and academic achievements: Well, it seems to me that the system they proposed is not the same as mine. I never said anything about property giving people a higher value for their vote. Many people with property are stupid. Also, I never said we should tie the value of the vote to academic achievements. I said we should tie it to knowledge of candidates’ positions and, perhaps, to some basic analytic reasoning skills. If someone with a high school diploma wanted to improve the value of their vote in the example you provided, it would take years for them to get a college degree. But, they could find out about the candidates’ positions much much quicker. > [@](#): > > I would be against such a system, for the following reasons: > > 1. We don’t need it. Well, I beg to differ. Based on issues I raised in previous posts above, I think we do need it, or if not it, something better than we have today. > [@](#): > > 1. The whole idea is misconceived. In a democracy, a voter is **not** allowed to vote so that he or she can give the body politic the benefit of his or her wisdom, such as it is. He/she is allowed to vote in order to make his/her **will** known and acted upon, and to defend and protect his/her own **interests.** The assumption is that in a democracy or republic the state belongs to its citizens, and **we are all citizens equally,** all equally people and all equally owners of our government, even if we are not equal in any other respect. This is similar to **Larry Borgia** ’s argument, and I can see why some people might have this belief. But for me, a voter should be giving the body politic the “benefit of his or her wisdom”, because that’s what would result in the best decisions. Imagine that there are two companies in which the employees have equal ownership of the company. In one company, decisions are made in a democratic way: each employee’s opinion counts the same. In the other company, decisions are made by weighing the opinions of people according to how much they know about the subject at hand, how much experience they have, etc. (kind of like today’s companies do) Which company would do better? I would assume the latter. And this would be good for all the employees of the latter company, since they have equal ownership in the company. > [@](#): > > And it really does make a difference whether a given group is allowed to vote or not. When women got the vote in 1920, we did not get the compassionate, pacifist social utopia some suffragists had predicted. But we did get a society where the law and public policies became (by gradual stages) much fairer to women than they had been before, because now politicians had to worry about getting support from female voters. In South Africa under Apartheid, the whites, who could vote, were effectively living in a free republican society where they enjoyed civil liberties, while the blacks, who could not, were effectively living under a dictatorship. This has nothing to do with my proposed system. I do not propose to take the vote away from specific groups. The problem with denying women or blacks the right to vote was, among other issues, the fact that if you are a woman or black you cannot simply change that and thus give yourself the right to vote. But, in my proposed system, if your vote has a small value, you can easily increase it by learning about the issues in the campaign, and, if we include analytic reasoning questions in the test, you can take some classes to improve your analytic reasoning skills. You are not trapped into a low-value vote, which is different from when women and blacks were not allowed to vote: they were trapped into that situation. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/36 "2004-09-11T13:13:36Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > How much detail does one have to give before the question is deemed “correct” ? Would hitting the right buzzwords count? They would be multiple-choice questions, so no need to go into any detail. The bi-partisan committee that makes the test agrees before the election that the correct answer to 1 is a, for 2 it is c, etc. > [@](#): > > And are these questions subject to review and disclosure, or are they sprung on the voters on election day, like a pop quiz? If the questions are revealed in advance (or leaked), what’s to stop a party from announcing the “answers” in advance, to be copied verbatim by the voters? My initial idea was to keep them secret, but have a large number of them, say 100, and on election day for every voter pick a random subset of 10 of these and present it to the voter in random order. So, people cannot memorize the answer “1c, 2a, 3b, etc”, because question 1 would be different for each voter. > [@](#): > > If anything, your approach makes voting more of a hassle, which I predict will drive turnout even lower. If people don’t want to bother to vote, maybe we are better off without their vote. On the other hand, some countries have mandatory voting, so maybe something like this can be used in the U.S. too. (there are several other mandatory civic duties we must perform even today, like jury duty, so why not make voting one of them? And while we are at it, make it much easier to vote, like being able to vote until midnight at any post office in the country) ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/37 "2004-09-11T13:18:30Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I predict your chance of getting the necessary consitutional amendment conservatively at zero, though. BTW, I’m not proposing this as a system to replace the current system in the U.S., so I’m not concerned about how likely it is to be implemented in the U.S. any time soon. I mentioned this in the OP > [@Polerius](#): > > 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. I’m asking a theoretical question: whether a country with such a system would be better off than a country with 1-person-1-vote democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/38 "2004-09-11T14:33:29Z")
Effectively, though, your system would discriminate against the poor, women and minorities owing to their sometimes lesser opportunities to access whatever criteria you may be using for awarding higher voting levels – is a highly insightful but illiterate poor elderly black lady living in rural Mississippi without access to a TV set ranked high or low on your scale, and why that ranking? Second, and most importantly, **who decides the criteria**? Might, perhaps, holding the “right” ethical views be something that gets awarded higher ranking – and what are the “right” ethical views? One man, one vote has its problems, but it has this virtue – every person is equally affected by governmental actions, and has an equal voice in choosing those who will take those actions. Replacing that with **anything** runs the risk of even the wisest philosopher-kings overlooking the needs and wants of someone, who has no recourse save armed rebellion. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/39 "2004-09-11T19:24:07Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Effectively, though, your system would discriminate against the poor, women and minorities owing to their sometimes lesser opportunities to access whatever criteria you may be using for awarding higher voting levels – is a highly insightful but illiterate poor elderly black lady living in rural Mississippi without access to a TV set ranked high or low on your scale, and why that ranking? If you have a “a highly insightful but illiterate poor elderly black lady living in rural Mississippi without access to a TV set”, what would she base her decision to vote on? If she can’t read the news and can’t watch the news, what is she using as her source of information to decide whom to vote for? If she has no source of information, why is she voting? If she has a source of information, she can use that source to find out more about issues. > [@](#): > > Second, and most importantly, **who decides the criteria**? Might, perhaps, holding the “right” ethical views be something that gets awarded higher ranking – and what are the “right” ethical views? Who said anything about “ethical views”? The questions would be factual ones about what candidates’ positions are one various subjects, nobody would ask you to judge those positions, just know what they are. > [@](#): > > One man, one vote has its problems, but it has this virtue – every person is equally affected by governmental actions, and has an equal voice in choosing those who will take those actions. Replacing that with **anything** runs the risk of even the wisest philosopher-kings overlooking the needs and wants of someone, who has no recourse save armed rebellion . Who said anything about philosoper kings? In theory, we could have the exact same candidates we have today, but the campaigns would be about issues, not about whether one is a flip-flopper who may or may not have gotten some medals unjustifiably, or whether the other one pulled some strings to avoid the Vietnam war. I see no philosopher kings, just politicians that campaign on real issues, not garbage. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954/40 "2004-09-13T06:40:20Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > They would be multiple-choice questions, so no need to go into any detail. The bi-partisan committee that makes the test agrees before the election that the correct answer to 1 is a, for 2 it is c, etc. > My initial idea was to keep them secret, but have a large number of them, say 100, and on election day for every voter pick a random subset of 10 of these and present it to the voter in random order. > > So, people cannot memorize the answer “1c, 2a, 3b, etc”, because question 1 would be different for each voter. You’re adding complexity without a corresponding benefit. And in politics, I seriously doubt any commitee, no matter how bipartisan, is going to unanimously agree to an a multiple choice answer unless three of the answers are outrageously wrong, and maybe not even then: Question: What is Candidate Bush’s stance on abortion? a) The states should set their own policies. b) Only demon spawn would consider it. c) The proper spelling includes a “Q”. d) It should be free with your fifth oil change. Although only (a) is reasonable, extreme anti-abortionists likely _want_ him to believe (b) and rabid Bush-haters might think he believes (b) but is also dumb enough to believe (c). What if a voter wants to argue a point? Even so, let’s say for the sake of argument that you can think up three alternate answers to each of 100 questions that are clearly wrong, but can’t be construed to be inflammatory or derisive. You describe some process of giving each voter ten randomly-selected questions. Will computers be involved? Is there any practical way for computer to _not_ be involved, assuming an electorate of millions? Doesn’t the inclusion of computers invite the chance for massive errors, like voters getting one question ten times, or getting questions for which the correct answer doesn’t appear? For that matter, it’s might be easy to draw up a questionaire around two candidates who differ sharply on key issues, but what happens in a multiparty system? Can a voter be disqualified because he didn’t correctly answer a question about the trade policies of the Brain Slug (or other fringe) party, a party for whom the voter may have had no interest because their primary platform involves something the voter finds untenable (i.e. attaching brain slugs to people), thus discouraging research into their secondary goals? Using the United States as a model, the 2000 popular vote totals were, roughly: Democrat: 48% Republican: 48% Green: 3% Reform: 0.4% Libertarian: 0.3% By this reckoning, would your proposed 100-question “pool” (for a theoretical 2004 election) consist of 48 questions about the Dem candidate, 48 about the Rep candidate, 3 about the Green candidate and 1 about the Reform candidate? Did you have another formula in mind? Is it even _possible_ to create a list of 48 questions about the Dem candidate that even a hardcore Dem supporter could ace? Seems to me, some of those questions would end up being particularlry esoteric or obscure. But let’s assume the questionaire is issue-based rather than party-based. Twenty major subjects are chosen, for example: [ul][li]Abortion[/li][li]The Death Penalty[/li][li]Defense Spending[/li][li]Taxes[/li][li]Social Security[/li][li]The Environment[/li][li]Gay Marriage[/li][li]Stem-cell Research[/li][li]Welfare[/li][li]Affirmative Action[/li][li]Gender Issues[/li][li]Creationism[/li][li]The War on Drugs[/li][li]The War on Terror[/li][li]School Prayer[/li][li]Genetic Engineering/Cloning[/li][li]Flag Burning[/li][li]Animal Rights[/li][li]School Violence[/li][li]Gun Control[/li][/ul] And five questions about each subject are written up about five different parties. In the U.S. model, only forty of the questions would be about the “main” parties (Dem and Rep) with sixty questions about the fringe parties (Green, Reform, Libertarian). Given an electoratte of 100 million, simple probability says 4.2 million voters will get a questionaire with six or more fringe-party questions on it (I hope my math is correct). Given the voting totals of 2000, 96% of the electorate didn’t vote fringe. I expect the vast majority of those 96% don’t have a clue how the fringe parties feel on _any_ subject. Under this scheme, a sizable and totally random portion of the electorate will fail the test because they get questions about the positions of candidates that the may not (and may never) have any interest in. There are numerous possible ways to make the vote a little better. Personally, I’d like to see political science classes added to the last year of high school, or voting day turned into an entire weekend. Making it easier for the electorate to vote and be informed sounds like a better choice than a hoop-jumping contest. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/improved-version-of-democracy/263954.md?page=3)