Is it a good idea of voting system change?
By spicymary
@spicymary (558)
Romania
January 23, 2013 2:30pm CST
I was thinking during various conversations that I had, and also due to some answers that I received in a previous discussion here about an idea of changing the voting system. I want to know what do you think about... I don't know if it exists somewhere, I was trying to search it, but I suppose I didn't find the best keywords.
The thing is that most of the people elect without being informed about the elections. They believe obvious political lies because they don't have enough information about how politics works. Like, for example, people vote for those who say they will reduce the taxes and also improve the educational, medical systems. But a big state can't be made without big taxes. So they have to choose between the two. In my country at least, enough people don't have elementar information like which party has which ideology or about the general history of the laws they made.
So, the system that might improve the situation will be to allow some citizens, that prove that are more informed, to have multiple votes. To be given a test before elections with elementar questions. Those who don't know the answers will have one vote to use. Those who know them all will have, for example 10 votes. With also the posibility to have 2, 5, 7 votes.
I think it's a good idea to encourage people to inform more. And also give more power of choosing to those who really care about the actual management of a state. Maybe it's utopian and will never work out.
What do you think about? Would you lobby for this change or sustain it in some way? Or would you reject? Could it make things gone better?
5 responses
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
24 Jan 13
No and no and **** no. It took way too much blood, sweat and tears in order to earn the right of one person, one vote for everyone.
If you are concerned about getting the word out, then spread it yourself. You have the medium, you just need the audience.
1 person likes this
@spicymary (558)
• Romania
24 Jan 13
What I don't agree with is that democracy means equality. I don't think that absolute equality can exist, like also absolute freedom can't exist. Democracy is a mixture of equality, freedom and the souvereignity of the people. That are never in the same amount, in different political systems of different democratic countries. Freedom and equality are opposite terms, when one raises, the other goes down. So the challenge is to balance them.
So, yes, maybe this will prejudice a little the equality area, but I think will improve the freedom. Because knowledge means freedom. And making the votes of those who have them more important (also the desire to know rewarded) politicians will have a harder time manipulating.
The universal suffrage was earned replacing the census suffrage. I think that what I say can remember the idea of the census. But it's not the same thing. People were not equal than in opportunities. They were born poor, so they couldn't say anything about the government. They could hardly overcome their conditions, and there was also the possibility that they didn't wanted to, from various reasons. But this, based on information, type of vote will not damage at all the opportunities area. Everybody, if he/she wants can have the maximum votes. It just requires minimum interest.
@burrito88 (2774)
• United States
23 Jan 13
But who makes up the test? The test could easily be biased to exclude certain populations either due to the ethnic heritage or their political leanings. Democracy also implies equality. Giving some people more than one vote creates inequality.
1 person likes this
@spicymary (558)
• Romania
24 Jan 13
Making the test would be, indeed, a great challenge. There should be a really smart legislation not to allow what you say. Some consensus would be required, but it would be difficult not to be manipulated.
@mensab (4200)
• Philippines
23 Jan 13
then, voting becomes not a basic right. it is not anymore democratic if some people will have more votes than others. the idea of one person, one vote is because of equal right of every person to the formation of a representative government. i think you are trying to solve a problem by introducing an alternative which will produce more problems. the constitution says that every man is born equal. why have more votes for others?
@spicymary (558)
• Romania
23 Jan 13
We are not equal, and the constitution refers that we are equal in front of the law. We should have equal opportunities from the state. But this idea doesn't contradict this idea. Everybody is free to inform and will have equal opportunities to pass the test. I was thinking that it shouldn't be a problem, even for illiterates. They can give it orally.
I don't say that we should do it now. But I just wonder. Why shouldn't work? And why should random votes count the same as really informed votes?
@binaybbsr1 (375)
• India
24 Jan 13
Your intention is clear, idea is innovative, perhaps in individual basis its difficult to shape a big idea like election procedure etc. The basic thing is that the political parties should keep their master plan in a very brief manner in front of public. There are some demerit with question answer system. Still your main idea is to give importance to the important persons of the country at the time of voting. I ve not researched on your idea. Later I may be able to find a better way and can respond better. Thank you.
1 person likes this
