I think a bit of a re-visit to my first post on democracy is needed. Since posting it, I have got a lot of negative vibes (dude) from people who read the blog, or who I introduced the idea to. It was posted on my school's forum, which got a fairly large response.
Anyway, what I want to clarify is this. I'm not interested, necessarily, in making it so that richer people get more votes. That may not work. What I am interested in doing, is finding a correlation - read it again - correlation between how informed you are on political issues (as opposed to intelligence, which was my previous objective for finding how good someone was at voting). Now, it is quite possible that richer people will be more informed on political issues, and thus their opinion should be given more weight. It is also possible that people with a higher degree of education are more informed. Hell, it could be possible that people with blue eyes are more suitable to voting. It doesn't matter what the measure is - as long as there is correlation. I'm sick and tired of people pointing out one or two isolated examples of people who are rich and stupid, or left school at 16 and are smart. That isn't important, provided that there is correlation. Of course there will be anomalies. Furthermore, the difference in votes should be equated to the correlation. If there is a very weak correlation between, say, wealth and how informed one is at voting, then perhaps the poorest person could be given one vote, and the richest given 1.01.
I don't particularly care what measure is used (a variety of measures compounded would almost certainly be best), just so long as there is a measure. Of course studies would have to be carried out to find a suitable measure.
Something to think about for those who are still vehemently opposed to my opinion, thinking that democracy is some eternal value or something, is that we already do this system. At polling day, the opinions of those who are under the age of 18 is not considered important in the SLIGHTEST. We do not value the opinion of those under 18 - why? Because they are not informed enough - because they aren't good enough voters. Why stop there?
6 hours ago
Hi Tom - Steve Coulson here (your Dad told me about your blog - very impressive writing!). Just a couple of thoughts that might help your quest for a better voting system!
ReplyDeleteWhilst taking the intelligence or political understanding of a voter into account, you may be discounting the voting turnout. In the 2005 election the turnout was 61.9%. It would be fair to argue that those who are more 'politically aware' are also more likely to vote. Students (who typically care less about politics) have the lowest turnout of all. This could be seen as a natural weighting of the voting system.
I also feel that reducing the value (relatively speaking) of a person's vote is likely to reduce their desire to become 'politically aware'. Through a negative cycle of a decreased desire to learn about politics, the inevitable reduction in their vote's weighting and a decreased voting turnout; a ruling aristocracy of the 'politically aware' could emerge.
Finally, it could be argued that it is the role of political parties to make their policies easier to understand for your everyday person. If someone doesn't know what the exchange rate mechanism is, they should be told what effect a party's policies might have on the price of a car stereo from the USA. Many people do not care about the complicated details of politics but do care about the more everyday effects politicians will have on their lives. 38.1% of people didn't vote in 2005 because they couldn't tell the difference between different political parties.
Whilst I am all for promoting political awareness I feel that it could be wrong to penalise those who don't quite understand the political system. It is perhaps the fault of state-run education that our generation is so poorly informed.
Our country is on the whole made up of people and not politicians and these people might not even notice a difference if the conservatives take over tomorrow. However, this should not be to their discredit, it should be to the discredit of the political parties who seem to make simple things sound very very confusing, therefore alienating most of the people they are supposedly there to serve (just like lecturers at University! You have that joy to look forward to!).
Please do email me your thoughts at:
stephen.coulson@dur.ac.uk
Speak to you soon
Steve
Just saw your first democracy article. An extension of my points above:
ReplyDeleteIf politicians explained to voters why it is bad to have a steel tariff then they might understand. People make these emotional choices because they are given little else to work with. It is not because they are irrational, but because the negative effects of a tariff have not been explained to them. Politicians are scared to suggest removing tariffs (CAP policy) because they are already thinking about the next election. They discourage rational, sober thinking by making extravagent promises that are not met.
I feel that power given to a few people is far more dangerous (Nazi Germany) and inefficient (Russia) than power somewhat shared between many. Democracy isn't great but its better than anything else if you look at economic figures.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Winston Churchill, from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)