# Let's debate "plural voting" (Mark Twain's "Curious Republic of Gondour") **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 3, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275 "2006-01-03T20:39:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/1 "2006-01-03T20:39:46Z")
In Mark Twain’s 1875 short story “The Curious Republic of Gondour” – [http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/gondour.html;](http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/gondour.html;) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondour](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondour) – a fictional republic has solved the problem of the overwhelming political influence of “the ignorant and non-taxpaying classes” by adopting a system of “enlarged” suffrage: Everybody gets **one** vote, but you can earn additional votes by virtue of your wealth, education, or services to the state. I.e., if you cast a vote for candidate X, and you carry three votes, your vote is counted three times. In the story, this system improves the quality of elected leaders, besides giving everyone an extra incentive to improve their own education, etc. I’ve read that John Stuart Mill argued for such a system of “plural voting”\* but I can’t find a cite, other than this, which does not identify the exact source: [http://www.humanities.uci.edu/~rmoeller/body/mill\_pluralvoting.html](http://www.humanities.uci.edu/~rmoeller/body/mill_pluralvoting.html) I have read that a prominent American conservative in the early 20th Century argued vociferously for such a system, but I can’t recall his name. Would this be a good or necessary reform? What would it actually change? My own thinking is, persons of superior wealth and education **already have** influence in politics far out of proportion to their numbers – via campaign donations, personal connections, and their influence over less-sophisticated persons who seek out their opinions. (In a polysci course I took in college, such opinion-molders were called "sociological stars.) Why give them even more? \*Not to be confused with the “plural voting” system in British elections to the House of Commons before the reforms of 1948, in which a person who owned sufficient property in several boroughs could vote in each of them, and university students could vote both at home and in university. [http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/821.html](http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/821.html) Perhaps “weighted voting” would be a better name for what I’m describing above. Political scientists probably have a technical term for it, but I can’t seem to dig it up. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/2 "2006-01-03T20:45:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I have read that a prominent American conservative in the early 20th Century argued vociferously for such a system, but I can’t recall his name. Oh, and I am **not** talking about Robert Heinlein (who strongly favored a “Republic of Gondour” system). It was somebody from the first half of the century. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/3 "2006-01-04T04:23:25Z")
I found the Mill citation – he discusses plural voting in Chapter 8 of _Representative Government_ – [http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john\_stuart/m645r/chapter8.html](http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645r/chapter8.html). Scroll down to the middle of the page. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/4 "2006-01-04T04:35:09Z")
It’s the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard of. Why the hell would we want to limit the influence of the “ignorant and non-taxpaying classes”. Besides the ballot, what powers to they have over the rich and educated? Oh yes, they can rise up with their superior numbers. Which is what they’d do unless they were truly retarded. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/5 "2006-01-04T04:56:42Z")
If you want a true “wisdomocracy”, you need to adopt some variation on decentralized absolute democracy (absolute confederacy), in which world population is divided into somethings (3rds, let’s say), each of which is divided into 3rds, and so on until you have tiny little local units determining tiny little local decisions and handling affairs that can be handled on such a local level without any differentiation in status between individuals. One does hope in such situations, and in the next level up (of three such units, meeting one third as often via the scheduled concurrency of three such local units), that the best ideas will rise to the top, and/or that the ideas most vividly expressed and/or argued for will do so. And if we also utilize a hierarchy of permanence-of-decisions-made, deliberately crafting a more complicated procedure for scheduling debate, debating, and determining consensus on higher-level decisions than on lower-level ones, for each of the hierarchical levels of authority, we again move to enshrine the ideas that are the most compelling and most compelling argued for over, at this point also putting value on “for the longest duration”. What gets in the way of “wisdomocracy” in our current system is not the “stupidity of the masses” etc so much as the plentitude of means by which people may ascend to decision-making authority, and exercise it once attained, which do not in any but the most peripheral senses reference the brilliance of the ideas or the general communications skills of the folks promoting them. I would most vehemently oppose [/quote] you can earn additional votes by virtue of your wealth [/quote] . Why for the love of al that’s loveworthy should the folks who have trapped more currency in their own pile be rewarded more than they already have been for their endeavors along those lines? At absolute best, in my most capitalistic-approving mode (i.e., ignoring such things as inheritance and starting point considerations in general and pretending that everyone starts off from the same starting line), I’m just barely convinced that the set of human characteristics that lead one to succeed at Monopoly-for-real are particularly praiseworthy. I’ll give you ambition, determination, aspects of intelligence and lust and of wisdom, but take away points in the categories of empathy, cooperation, the tendency to hold out for the most meaningful of reasons/causes, and the characteristic we call, for lack of a better word, humility (actually the embrace of naïveté, the willingness to consider things anew), and also other equally-valid forms of intelligence, lust, and wisdom. And that’s at artificial best (you and me and a few other folks starting off Monopoly from scratch as equal players at game’s kickoff). God knows I’d love to see democracy expanded beyond “which of these two idiots do you want to make official decisions on your behalf for the next 2-4-6 years”, but rewarding success as measured at some finite starting time strikes me as an incredibly pisspoor idea. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/6 "2006-01-04T13:32:34Z")
You don’t want plural voting – you want fractional voting. The MIT Sciece Fiction Society (MITSFS) used to do this, and maybe still does. Everyone gets one vote, but they can split it by fractions between the various candidates. 0.75 for candidate A, 0.15 for candidate B, 0.1 for Candidate C. Lets you really express your feelings. And hedge your bets. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/7 "2006-01-04T15:30:52Z")
Mark Twain’s “Curious Republic of Gondour”? “Hey, Huck, why y’all paintin’ that tree?” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![bobthebuilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c67d28/32.png) [@bobthebuilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobthebuilder)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/8 "2006-01-04T16:36:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Oh, and I am **not** talking about Robert Heinlein (who strongly favored a “Republic of Gondour” system). It was somebody from the first half of the century. I always thought that Robert Heinlen’s solution in Star ship troopers was a good one. To vote and gain full citizenship you have to serve in the military a set number of years. But Im not sure if I would call heinlen a conservative, it would be more apt to call him libertarian. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/9 "2006-01-04T16:44:02Z")
> [@bobthebuilder](#): > > I always thought that Robert Heinlen’s solution in Star ship troopers was a good one. > To vote and gain full citizenship you have to serve in the military a set number of years. > > But Im not sure if I would call heinlen a conservative, it would be more apt to call him libertarian. Uhh… no. Requiring military service to become a person of consideration in society is more… fascist. I don’t speak for libertarianism as a whole, but that military service idea is pretty much the opposite of libertarianism as I see and understand it. ---
**Author:** ![bobthebuilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c67d28/32.png) [@bobthebuilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobthebuilder)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/10 "2006-01-04T16:56:07Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Uhh… no. Requiring military service to become a person of consideration in society is more… fascist. I don’t speak for libertarianism as a whole, but that military service idea is pretty much the opposite of libertarianism as I see and understand it. Well I didnt mean that specific instance, Im not even sure if he would advocate it in actuallity. And I would disagree I consider myself to have some libertarian leanings, and it seems to me the basic tenents of libertarianism are the rights of life liberty and property, (john locke summed up all three in his second treatise on civil government in the term property) and that this really doesnt go against those ideals, where as a conscripted army would. But if you read Expanding Universe (a collection of short stories and essay by Heinlen) you get the idea that he didnt like government and from his work “The moon is a harsh mistress” one of the main heroes seems to be a libertarian and the whole revolution of the moon seems to create a libertarian state. Not to mention the advocates for self government lable him as such, but whether thats of any consequence is debateable. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/11 "2006-01-04T17:35:12Z")
> [@bobthebuilder](#): > > And I would disagree I consider myself to have some libertarian leanings, and it seems to me the basic tenents of libertarianism are the rights of life liberty and property, (john locke summed up all three in his second treatise on civil government in the term property) and that this really doesnt go against those ideals, where as a conscripted army would. But the military-service-required-idea says, in essence, you are a second-class citizen until you forsake a portion of your liberty for a time. A second-class citizen with more limited rights to life, liberty, and property. And in a libertarian society, all citizens should have an equal say - there shouldn’t be a government-mandated caste system. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/12 "2006-01-04T18:08:31Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > But the military-service-required-idea says, in essence, you are a second-class citizen until you forsake a portion of your liberty for a time. A second-class citizen with more limited rights to life, liberty, and property. And in a libertarian society, all citizens should have an equal say - there shouldn’t be a government-mandated caste system. Couple of things about this idea of Heinlein’s: 1.) He expands the idea later (ahhh… forget where) that the individual is not just required to be in “military” service as we know the terms today. He included much of of what we call “the government.” (I.e. there were plenty of non-combat options to choose from.) 2.) I’m not sure that this isn’t in-line with libertarianism. The franchise is available to everyone (see above for pacifists, etc.). This is just an example of how you would trade with the government for a service: you need to give them a chunck of your time to receive the ability to vote. (IIRC, in the book, that was the only thing you got out of the deal; without service, you could live indefinately, own businesses/property/etc.) 3.) All citizens do have the right to vote. The only difference is that citizenship is not granted for being born within the borders. Think of it as if the requirement for citizenship is not being able to pass some scholastic test (like we make immigrants do), but the proof that the person displays an active interest in the government by actively participating in said government. Regardless of how you classify this concept, Heinlein was very much a libertarian. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/13 "2006-01-04T18:11:41Z")
> [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > Regardless of how you classify this concept, Heinlein was very much a libertarian. He may have been, but I disagree that the concept is. It’s a hijack anyway, back to your regularly scheduled thread. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/14 "2006-01-04T18:26:12Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > He may have been, but I disagree that the concept is. It’s a hijack anyway, back to your regularly scheduled thread. Fair enough. Back to the OP’s question: I rather like Heinlein’s suggestion (you’re surprised, right?) I think that anyone who wishes to vote should serve in the government for some time before gaining the right to take part in the decision making process. Understanding that there are a wide range of beliefs, etc., I believe that anywhere in our current government will suffice. Don’t like the military (for whatever reason)? Ok, go be a teacher, environmental scientist for a national/state agency, law enforcement agent, DOT worker, public defender, or whatever. Show some responsiblity for your country before you decide that you should help direct it. (BTW, I don’t have a hard concept on time requirement. 3 to 5 years sounds reasonable to me.) Should you decide to not take advantage of this requirement for citizenship, if you would have been a citizen (as defined by our current laws), you shall be granted “permanent resident status” and be allowed to work, learn, marry, procreate, purchase services from the government, own property, own/run a business, etc. Just not vote. Given how voters would have the ability to vote down rights for residents, and the residents would have limited legal options, the rights of residents would need to be spelled out and nearly immutable in a constitution. I.e. there would need to be something that states that all rights, etc granted to citizens, withholding the right to vote, are granted to permanent residents. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/15 "2006-01-04T18:26:19Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > But the military-service-required-idea says, in essence, you are a second-class citizen until you forsake a portion of your liberty for a time. A second-class citizen with more limited rights to life, liberty, and property. In Heinlein’s _Starship Troopers,_ “lawful residents” of the Federation appear to have full civil rights, equal to those of “citizens.” The only difference is that only citizens are allowed to vote or hold public office. One might question whether it would really work out that way. In his 1972 book _Polyarchy_ ([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300015658/qid=1136398524/sr=8-1/ref=pd\_bbs\_1/002-2924742-0975232?n=507846&s=books&v=glance](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300015658/qid=1136398524/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2924742-0975232?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)), political scientist Robert Dahl demonstrated a practical connection between the voting franchise and civil rights. In South Africa under Apartheid, white people (who could vote) were effectively living in a democracy while blacks (who could not) were effectively living in a dictatorship – no civil rights, no means of defense against an arbitrary state. In Jerry Pournelle and S. M. Stirling’s Falkenberg’s Legion/Prince of Sparta SF novels [(collected in one volume as _The Prince_ – [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743435567/qid=1136398689/sr=2-1/ref=pd\_bbs\_b\_2\_1/002-2924742-0975232?s=books&v=glance&n=283155](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743435567/qid=1136398689/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-2924742-0975232?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)), the colony planet of Sparta has a tortuously complex constitution, of which even the heir to the throne says, “I would hate to have to explain it.” One feature is clear: The franchise is limited to persons who have earned citizenship; this is a challenging process which requires certain courses of education, plus militia service with one of the “phratries” (apparently a kind of synthetic tribe). The story is mainly about the rebellion of the voteless noncitizens, the Helots. Interestingly, it is never made clear exactly what is the Helots’ grievance, or what rights or privileges, **other** than political participation, they are denied which citizens enjoy. In fact, the Helots are presented as the dupes and puppets of a small number of purely evil megalomaniacal leaders. Pournelle himself has written that he modeled the military aspects of the story on Mao’s “low-intensity conflict” Chinese revolution, with the Helots in the role of the Communists. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/16 "2006-01-04T18:32:36Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > But the military-service-required-idea says, in essence, you are a second-class citizen until you forsake a portion of your liberty for a time. A second-class citizen with more limited rights to life, liberty, and property. In Heinlein’s _Starship Troopers,_ “lawful residents” of the Federation appear to have full civil rights, equal to those of “citizens.” The only difference is that only citizens are allowed to vote or hold public office. One might question whether it would really work out that way. In his 1972 book _Polyarchy_ ([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300015658/qid=1136398524/sr=8-1/ref=pd\_bbs\_1/002-2924742-0975232?n=507846&s=books&v=glance](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300015658/qid=1136398524/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2924742-0975232?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)), political scientist Robert Dahl demonstrated a practical connection between the voting franchise and civil rights. In South Africa under Apartheid, white people (who could vote) were effectively living in a democracy while blacks (who could not) were effectively living in a dictatorship – no civil rights, no means of defense against an arbitrary state. In Jerry Pournelle and S. M. Stirling’s Falkenberg’s Legion/Prince of Sparta SF novels [(collected in one volume as _The Prince_ – [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743435567/qid=1136398689/sr=2-1/ref=pd\_bbs\_b\_2\_1/002-2924742-0975232?s=books&v=glance&n=283155](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743435567/qid=1136398689/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-2924742-0975232?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)), the colony planet of Sparta has a tortuously complex constitution, of which even the heir to the throne says, “I would hate to have to explain it.” One feature is clear: The franchise is limited to persons who have earned citizenship; this is a challenging process which requires certain courses of education, plus militia service with one of the “phratries” (apparently a kind of synthetic tribe). The story is mainly about the rebellion of the voteless noncitizens, the Helots. Interestingly, it is never made clear exactly what is the Helots’ grievance, or what rights or privileges, **other** than political participation, they are denied which citizens enjoy. In fact, the Helots are presented as the dupes and puppets of a small number of purely evil megalomaniacal leaders. Pournelle himself has written that he modeled the military aspects of the story on Mao’s “low-intensity conflict” Chinese revolution, with the Helots in the role of the Communists. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/17 "2006-01-04T18:37:26Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In Heinlein’s _Starship Troopers,_ “lawful residents” of the Federation appear to have full civil rights, equal to those of “citizens.” The only difference is that only citizens are allowed to vote or hold public office. > > One might question whether it would really work out that way. In his 1972 book _Polyarchy_ ([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300015658/qid=1136398524/sr=8-1/ref=pd\_bbs\_1/002-2924742-0975232?n=507846&s=books&v=glance](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300015658/qid=1136398524/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2924742-0975232?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)), political scientist Robert Dahl demonstrated a practical connection between the voting franchise and civil rights. In South Africa under Apartheid, white people (who could vote) were effectively living in a democracy while blacks (who could not) were effectively living in a dictatorship – no civil rights, no means of defense against an arbitrary state. > > In Jerry Pournelle and S. M. Stirling’s Falkenberg’s Legion/Prince of Sparta SF novels [(collected in one volume as _The Prince_ – [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743435567/qid=1136398689/sr=2-1/ref=pd\_bbs\_b\_2\_1/002-2924742-0975232?s=books&v=glance&n=283155](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743435567/qid=1136398689/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-2924742-0975232?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)), the colony planet of Sparta has a tortuously complex constitution, of which even the heir to the throne says, “I would hate to have to explain it.” One feature is clear: The franchise is limited to persons who have earned citizenship; this is a challenging process which requires certain courses of education, plus militia service with one of the “phratries” (apparently a kind of synthetic tribe). The story is mainly about the rebellion of the voteless noncitizens, the Helots. Interestingly, it is never made clear exactly what is the Helots’ grievance, or what rights or privileges, **other** than political participation, they are denied which citizens enjoy. In fact, the Helots are presented as the dupes and puppets of a small number of purely evil megalomaniacal leaders. Pournelle himself has written that he modeled the military aspects of the story on Mao’s “low-intensity conflict” Chinese revolution, with the Helots in the role of the Communists. The differences, at least in my mind, are that in aparteid, black’s _could not_ get the vote, and the Helots would have to go through a ‘challenging process which requires certain courses of education, plus militia service with one of the “phratries”.’ In my little world, any resident (even at the age of 105) who wishes to go through the process should be allowed to. That is, government service cannot be denied to a legal resident. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/18 "2006-01-04T18:38:22Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > I would most vehemently oppose you can earn additional votes by virtue of your wealth [/quote] . Why for the love of al that’s loveworthy should the folks who have trapped more currency in their own pile be rewarded more than they already have been for their endeavors along those lines? At absolute best, in my most capitalistic-approving mode (i.e., ignoring such things as inheritance and starting point considerations in general and pretending that everyone starts off from the same starting line), I’m just barely convinced that the set of human characteristics that lead one to succeed at Monopoly-for-real are particularly praiseworthy. I’ll give you ambition, determination, aspects of intelligence and lust and of wisdom, but take away points in the categories of empathy, cooperation, the tendency to hold out for the most meaningful of reasons/causes, and the characteristic we call, for lack of a better word, humility (actually the embrace of naïveté, the willingness to consider things anew), and also other equally-valid forms of intelligence, lust, and wisdom. And that’s at artificial best (you and me and a few other folks starting off Monopoly from scratch as equal players at game’s kickoff). [/QUOTE] This illustrates how the cultural assumptions of another century can be as different of those of another civilization. In Britain, until 1948, voting rights were based on **property.** If you owned sufficient property in two boroughs, you could vote in both boroughs. Here’s Mill’s take on it (from _Representative Government,_ link above): > [@](#): > > It is also important, that the assembly which votes the taxes, either general or local, should be elected exclusively by those who pay something towards the taxes imposed. Those who pay no taxes, disposing by their votes of other people’s money, have every motive to be lavish and none to economise. As far as money matters are concerned, any power of voting possessed by them is a violation of the fundamental principle of free government; a severance of the power of control from the interest in its beneficial exercise. It amounts to allowing them to put their hands into other people’s pockets for any purpose which they think fit to call a public one; which in some of the great towns of the United States is known to have produced a scale of local taxation onerous beyond example, and wholly borne by the wealthier classes. That representation should be co-extensive with taxation, not stopping short of it, but also not going beyond it, is in accordance with the theory of British institutions. But to reconcile this, as a condition annexed to the representation, with universality, it is essential, as it is on many other accounts desirable, that taxation, in a visible shape, should descend to the poorest class. In this country, and in most others, there is probably no labouring family which does not contribute to the indirect taxes, by the purchase of tea, coffee, sugar, not to mention narcotics or stimulants. But this mode of defraying a share of the public expenses is hardly felt: the payer, unless a person of education and reflection, does not identify his interest with a low scale of public expenditure as closely as when money for its support is demanded directly from himself; and even supposing him to do so, he would doubtless take care that, however lavish an expenditure he might, by his vote, assist in imposing upon the government, it should not be defrayed by any additional taxes on the articles which he himself consumes. It would be better that a direct tax, in the simple form of a capitation, should be levied on every grown person in the community; or that every such person should be admitted an elector on allowing himself to be rated extra ordinem to the assessed taxes; or that a small annual payment, rising and falling with the gross expenditure of the country, should be required from every registered elector; that so everyone might feel that the money which he assisted in voting was partly his own, and that he was interested in keeping down its amount. > > However this may be, I regard it as required by first principles, that the receipt of parish relief should be a peremptory disqualification for the franchise. He who cannot by his labour suffice for his own support has no claim to the privilege of helping himself to the money of others. By becoming dependent on the remaining members of the community for actual subsistence, he abdicates his claim to equal rights with them in other respects. Those to whom he is indebted for the continuance of his very existence may justly claim the exclusive management of those common concerns, to which he now brings nothing, or less than he takes away. As a condition of the franchise, a term should be fixed, say five years previous to the registry, during which the applicant’s name has not been on the parish books as a recipient of relief. To be an uncertified bankrupt, or to have taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act, should disqualify for the franchise until the person has paid his debts, or at least proved that he is not now, and has not for some long period been, dependent on eleemosynary support. Non-payment of taxes, when so long persisted in that it cannot have arisen from inadvertence, should disqualify while it lasts. These exclusions are not in their nature permanent. They exact such conditions only as all are able, or ought to be able, to fulfil if they choose. They leave the suffrage accessible to all who are in the normal condition of a human being: and if any one has to forego it, he either does not care sufficiently for it to do for its sake what he is already bound to do, or he is in a general condition of depression and degradation in which this slight addition, necessary for security of others, would be unfelt, and on emerging from which, this mark of inferiority would disappear with the rest. Observe that this argument is, strictly speaking, as logical as yours – but starts from a completely different set of first principles. You can begin to see why modern Libertarians often regard Mill as a proto-Libertarian. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2006, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/19 "2006-01-05T18:14:51Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > You don’t want plural voting – you want fractional voting. > > The MIT Sciece Fiction Society (MITSFS) used to do this, and maybe still does. Everyone gets one vote, but they can split it by fractions between the various candidates. 0.75 for candidate A, 0.15 for candidate B, 0.1 for Candidate C. Lets you really express your feelings. And hedge your bets. . . . That’s an interesting idea, but for a different thread. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2006, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275/20 "2006-01-05T21:21:09Z")
> [@Menocchio](#): > > Why the hell would we want to limit the influence of the “ignorant and non-taxpaying classes”. The underlying motivaion is a desire to avoid the bread-and-circuses problem that did in the Roman Republic. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-plural-voting-mark-twains-curious-republic-of-gondour/338275.md?page=2)