ADVOCATING A MULTIVOTE SYSTEM (MVS) FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORM

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

ADVOCATING A MULTIVOTE SYSTEM (MVS) FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORM

There are two basic political ideologies in our country that made sense when they were formulated two and a half centuries ago, but which make no common sense today.

They are:

  1. One man, one vote.
  2. Representational Government.

One Man - Multiple Votes

An example of why a multiple vote system (MVS) should be implemented

As it stands now any 18 year old can cancel out a more experienced elder’s vote at the ballot box if he/she so chooses.
Lets take a senior citizen: Well educated. Has spent at least twenty one years mastering a craft or business profession. Married with children, and has faithfully executed his/her duties as a husband/wife, father/mother, while improving the family estate as the children grow up. Has spent at least one year abroad getting to know one or more other cultures. Has spent ten years as a part-time volunteer in community work

Though every human being has the right to vote in a democracy, it stands to reason that the 18 year old vote does not equal the quality of the senior’s vote.

Since there are many more inexperienced voters than there are elders, and who consequently have the majority say in government should they so choose, what does the future portend? As far as I can see, the political disarray of the moment that is a major cause for voter apathy, can only continue unless some form of change takes place and which puts much of the decision-making, especially in foreign relations, in the hands of more experienced voters.

One more important human rights point on this before I make my proposal for mass change.
Every person has an undisputed right to one vote. Why are the rights of children excluded? From birth (even in the womb) they are immediately and directly affected by political decisions the nation makes. It stands to reason that their parents, who have taken on the burden of raising new citizens, should be given the regency to execute their rights at the ballot box as they see fit until the children come of age.

I therefore propose a multiple vote system. (MVS)

Vote 1. Registered at birth and administered by parents until 18.
Vote 2. After graduating high school or completing a trade apprenticeship.
Vote 3. Advanced degree from a recognized educational facility
Vote 4. At Age 42, after 21 years of full time occupation mastering a trade or profession.
vote 5. Sustained marriage and parenthood till the youngest child is at least 14.
Vote 6. At least 1 year international experience serving abroad.
Vote 7. Ten years volunteer community service.

REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT

Congress

It no longer takes a man a week or more to ride to Washington to represent a congressional district. We have an instantaneous mass communication system. Every local or national issue can be thoroughly investigated and aired. With our votes only an electronic click away every single one of us can fully represent ourselves and our views.

I propose that the House of Congress be turned into a political museum

Political Parties

Without a Congress the party system becomes passe. (The end of the serious crisis this system has created by dividing the country into red and blue states)


Senate

Some form of national deliberating body should remain in place as a center of national attention.

Personal qualifications for election to the Senate

  1. Minimum age 65. (The word senator, denotes senior)
  2. Gender equality: Same amount of male and female senators
  3. Holder of 7 votes.

Two/thirds majority vote required on national and international proposals

Presidency

Mainly ceremonial. Power to cast deciding vote.

I believe that these common sense political changes will motivate the democratic system and end the current voter apathy. It will also get rid of the deadlock created by aposing extremists in the two party system - not to mention. pork barrelling and special interest influences.

A Senate of internationally experienced elders will ensure that our world leadership role gets our planet mangement responsibilities up to full steam.

2

An interesting idea, but what of these questions:

  1. Not everyone has the opportunity to achieve an advanced degree and thus move up the ranks of voter power.

Does this not concentrate political power among a very small majority of people? Namely white, affluent, late middle age (or old) men? Seems to me that they already have enough power, no matter how many votes they get.

  1. There seems to me to be no correlation between the level of political power here and anything that guarantees any kind of wisdom or desire to enact positive policy. None of those things guarantees that an individual will make a “better” choice of who to vote for.

Not to be rude, but the word senile also denotes senior.

I am Canadian, so it will be a bit different, but Parliament is already pretty full of grey hair, and they don’t seem to be doing a whole bunch now. Why would making them older, and guaranteeing that they are from one fairly specific demographic be likely to increase their desire to make the world any better?

cheers,
gemty

3

Scholarships are available to any average student who puts in the extra effort to get one. If you are not that keen on study, then go for six votes instead of seven. Each vote provides a different incentive to the aspirant.

The Multiple Vote System is designed to give the increasingly minority of older voters an equal say in government. This includes women (whom you exclude in your next objection) Your claim that old men have enough political power is unsubstantiated. The population census shows that the vast majority of people of voting age are under 60. This proposal is not designed to perpetuate elitism. Once the social values that determine good citizenship are more clearly demarcated via the seven social merits outlined in MVS, everybody who really wants to, is just as capable as the next of climbing up the ladder of increased voting power as they age and succeed in life.

The whole point of MVS is not about what ambitious politician to vote for (and be influenced by the millions of dollars they spend trying to get your vote) but what social policy to vote for. It is time we each represented our own opinions. We now have the mass communication system to do so.

MVS is designed to over-come current voter apathy; get rid of the ineffectual divisions created by a two-paty system; encourage and propogate a self-motivated, self-policed society - and in that process, free us of the massive expense we spend in the huge bureaucratically supervised governments we have in place today.

Those appointed to the senate should not be the kind of people who campaign for votes, but the kind of recognized local sages that people have traditonally turned to for measured advise and leadership.

That is rude. Senility is a desease. It is more apt to say that senior denotes sage and junior denotes neophyte.

Comparing the political system as is now - to what I am proposing for the future does not equate. I am arguing that mass change is needed for the much the same reasons you are complaining about. The problem with politcs as it stands is that many politicians are in government not for the right reasons, whether they be young or old. MVS calls for a more ethical attitude towards one-self and society in general and how we apply those ethics to govern our nations and the planet. In this proposal no senior man or women can get elected to the senate without having proved that they are worthy citizens with the kind of altruistic motives for wanting to govern that only comes with age.

4

Magnetman:

The purpose of democracy is not to ensure wise and enlightened government. It is to help preclude abusive government that serves privilege over the common good. That it does not completely succeed in this purpose is lamentably clear, but that is no cause to abandon it and implement an overt system of privilege such as the one you describe.

I cannot resist making one other observation. Every generation, as it ages, gives rise to individual members who assert the superior wisdom of the old. It appears that ours is no exception. Yet I have not forgotten how foolish were many of the policies enacted by my elders when I was your son’s age – nor changed my mind in that regard.

To become old is, unfortunately, no guarantee of wisdom. And sometimes experience serves only as a barrier to necessary improvisation, when the old ways have become outmoded and no longer serve.

5

If human evolution has any meanting then it is to grow up and graduate beyond the adolescent need to be goverened by somebody else.
We have, in my humble opinion, reached that stage of maturity - or at least are very close to it. We can decide on serious issues for ourselves. The bullies in the playground are never a serious menace. They certainly have never scared me. Just as we out-grow our parents, so should we bureaucratic over-sight. You sound like our forefathers did three hundred years ago. Times have changed, we are in a global situation now. We should move on and meets its new demands.

My dear fellow, when death is but five or six years away, one takes a more profound view of life than one does when it is never on the mind, It brings on serious retrospective analysis. Past mistakes (for they are what we learn by) are clearly understood in relation the society and its mores that one is raised in. One clearly sees what one should have and could have done. That is the mechanism of how the wisdom of sagehood arises. It compensates for the loss of one’s youthful vigor and vulgar ambitions. It only comes on in the 64 th year. Health and God-willing it can reach extreme heights by the 85th. Youngsters have no idea, nor respect for what I am talking about. When you get there, you will see it more clearly for yourself.

6

My claim that old men have plenty of political power can be seen by looking beyond the number of potential votes cast to some of the other factors that affect real political power. For example, affluence, education, and proximity to the centre of economic production are the highest in white, affluent, middle aged men. As such, despite the real number of votes they may be able to cast, they still wield disproportionate political power.

Not to mention the fact that even a cursory glance at demographics would tell you that a) vastly more people of advanced age vote than younger people, and b) that with the aging of the baby boomers, there will be a huge increase in the number of people of advancing age.

I regret that you took my meaning as rude. I was simply pointing out that the word senile is literally related to the word senior. According to Dorland’s medical Dictionary:

senile (se·nile) (se´nīl) [L. senilis] 1. pertaining to or characteristic of old age. 2. manifesting senility (def. 2). (Italics mine)

Notice that the first meaning of senile, even in a medical dictionary is “pertaining to or characteristic of old age.” The reason I brought this up is to show the spurious nature of your argument that because the word ‘senator’ and ‘senior’ are etymologically linked that it follows that we should only allow senior citizens into the senate.

Except that you haven’t demonstrated that any individual is any more likely, as a function of age, to have altruistic motives than they did at any other point in their lives. Or even that the elderly are more altruistic. It is you who is making unsubstantiated claims.

cheers,
gemty

7

I see no point in further semantic arguments regarding the social and spiritual outlook of elders with someone who has yet to experience that condition of mind and body. If a dictionary definiton provides you with a degree knowledge you are welcome to conclude that we are generally senile and ineffective. So too your contention that younger people in general are just as apt to transcend personal goals and ambitions and become more involved with social altruism as the elderly.
As to the rest, what is the point of your objections?
Are you saying that the political the status quo is funtioning well and should not be reformed?
Do you see no merits at all in the innovative proposals that I have put forward?
If neither of the above, what are your proposals for improvement?

8

First of all, please stop patronizing me. I don’t need to wait until I get there; I am there.

Secondly, you’re only 64 or 65. If death is only a few years away for you, then it’s not because you’re old it’s because you’re in poor health, which could happen at any age.

Third, while it is true that age CAN bring wisdom, I have seen too much evidence to the contrary to become convinced that it inevitably DOES.

And fourth, while I am hardly a “youngster,” I do not respect what you are talking about, for no other reason than that it is manifest nonsense.

9

Ahh, the true heart of your argument. The group to which you belong possesses something so rare and special, based in your case on it’s age, that no one who is isn’t in the group is at all qualified to question or comment. I guess I’ll have to wait 35 years to be special enough to comment.

Really, read more carefully. I didn’t conclude that seniors, or you, were anything. I was simply pointing out the spurious nature of your argument.

My contention? I did nothing of the sort because I think that age is a poor predictor of altruism. I didn’t contend that young people are more or less altruistic than seniors because I think age is a dumb way to sort people, and a poor way to make decisions.

The point of my objections is that what you’ve really said here is that seniors, as a group, are the only people in society who should be qualified to wield political power. I find it terribly coincidental that you are one.

No. what I’m saying is is that I don’t think we should concentrate political power at the feet of any one group. We should aim for an inclusive and equal political system. Not give all the power to a very small demographic.

I do see some merits in what you’ve suggested, certainly the use of technology, reducing/eliminating the role of the party, and reducing bureaucracy. I just don’t see that any group ought to wield disproportionate power the way you’re advocating.

Look, I’m not trying to say that seniors aren’t valuable or worthwhile. What I’m trying to say is that age is poor way to decide who should rule our society. Surely a capable, compassionate, altruistic person from any age group should be a welcome addition to government?

cheers,
gemty

10

If you are in my peer group, then I cannot be patronizing you. If you are not, then you should not gripe when corrected.

I am in excellent health for my age. yet death, with its inevitable questions about the meaning and purpose of life, remains a constant factor in my deliberations.

Accidental death presents an entirely different paradigm. Meaningful questions about life barely arose when I was younger every time a I took a risk. If they had, I probably would never have taken the dares that gambled with life and limb and would have consequently missed essential rites of passage that determine the quality of ones growth through manhood towards sagehood.

As to early death via disease, that is a tragic drama between an individual and his/her god. I would not presume to comment on what state of mind that brings.

If one lives an ethical life, and attempts to initiate some original ideas on the way, it inevitably DOES bring wisdom.

There is no need for rudeness, especially on serious issues. If all the above seems nonsense to you, why not just move on?

11

I am 20 years old and personally I don’t feel offended if MagnetMan makes a case that his vote is more valuable than mine. His argument about the Multi-Vote System, which encourages people to live a good productive life, makes common sense to me. But I must admit that the idea that our much loved democratic system, which has served us so well for so many generations, needs a radical overhaul, makes me feel a bit sad.

At the same time, I see this nation as an evolving one, and so must the system evolve with time. All past civilizations have gone into decline, basically due to the inability to adapt to new paradigms. If our current form of democracy only needed time to work the kinks out to run properly, it should be getting better and more effective rather than the increasing crisis’ we have now.

I definitely get how representative government made sense back in the day… when it was unfeasible, because of ox-wagon paced transport and communication for every citizen to have a direct say in congress. But, as you say, with today’s technology we certainly don’t need anyone to represent our personal opinions anymore. I personally am all for electronic voting. Like 40 plus million votes on a tv show can be counted in a matter of hours. So since communication is no longer a barrier it stands to reason that representative government is in fact no longer a necessity.

I certainly don’t agree that there is anything special about politicians that they can do the job better than any other citizen. A politician is simply someone who is informed, and again, with our technology there is no reason why anyone cannot become informed. And I think if people new that their vote counted and would not get lost in party interests, they would be motivated to better understand the issue they would vote on. Like a virtual congress with unlimited capacity.

I also see why this Multi-Vote System would come into play. It makes sense to me that the more time and effort one invests into their society the more say one should have in it. Not to say it should be lop-sided, for the younger generations are always the future, but I definitely see an elders’ ultimate social role as being one of advising and guiding the coming population. I don’t believe that purpose should be marginalized or disrespected at all. It only makes sense the longer you’re at something the higher in rank you get… after all the young visionaries of today will be old someday too. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that position must be earned, as long as the criteria is achievable by all. I myself am very poor but I know I can achieve the steps you laid out, except perhaps for the international travel, but I hope to make that possible to some degree, and there are global outreach programs that could also facilitate that.

I think that is why you have set such criteria, it isn’t just based on age… said goals do take time and effort to achieve, as does anything of value… and time equals age. I think education, a craft, community service and responsible parenting are about as good a universal standard as one can accomplish. Global experience is definitely a valuable perspective too, especially in this day in age.

On a personal note, I would like to say, I have seen this happen over and over again. When someone proposes something so completely out of the status quo, visionary, or idealistic as some would say… they are immediately treated as though they need an education on the system that is already in place. My guess is that the OP already knows exactly how the system works, and that is why they can see the need for change. Not out of ignorance but out of understanding. It’s very unusual for someone to not only criticize an existing system but also suggest an innovative and interesting alternative. Knowing some of our elders are using their past experience to think ahead gives my generation hope for the future. Therefore thumbs up on this thread.

12

The purpose of democracy has never been to make the wisest choices. It has been to distribute political power, itself always teetering between good and evil, as widely as possible, or at least as widely as is conceivable. Anything else misses the point.

13

Ever since I witnessed the first dysfunctional argument between my parents, I have always thought that the evolutionary purpose of the democratic process was to eventually get past the growing pains of deligating authority to parents, teachers, petty chiefs, petty kings and all the president’s petty men - to take full adult responsiblity on yourself for all the wheeling and dealing that take place in the immediate and extended global family.

Let the buck stop with yourself.

14

i really like this part. as i see these good ideas,i see only a dinosaur unchangeable system-unchangeable by the ‘powerless’ thinkers anyway.
still eliteism even in democracy. Us and our humble knowledge/ideas…

P.S. Human govts are too rigid because of the power-graspers.If there was no priviledge to govern,those guys would be more eager to get off and let us have a go!

15

I prefer Timocracy.

16

You have got me on that one???Please elucidate. :astonished: