Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Weighted votes Weighted votes

06-02-2016 , 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
Suppose only people who thought like DS could vote. The question of who would have won previous elections is moot because the new successful parties/groupings would be radically different to try to appeal to the DSian vote (any that didn't would quickly cease to exist as politically relevant)

This phenomena remains true whatever changes we make to the electoral demand. Whether weighting by IQ (or similar) will make a significant change is less clear.
I believe that I could design a test that would satisfy my political leanings quite well. We should use my test. I can assure you that those who will be allowed to vote (or have their votes more heavily weighted) will agree wholeheartedly that my test is acceptable.

Do not worry, my friends, the test will be entirely fair.
Weighted votes Quote
06-02-2016 , 04:13 PM
Sounds like the beginning of a Shakespearean tragedy. First you will be made great.
Weighted votes Quote
06-02-2016 , 08:51 PM
Make the tests voluntary and then market them as a way to become the smartest vote. Call yourself a journalist.

https://youtu.be/RLZOXw6RUqE
Weighted votes Quote
06-03-2016 , 02:16 AM
Actually I agree with all of you. Weighting votes is a bad idea. Everyone should get an equal vote. That's democracy.

However, those more equal than others should be able to take a completely voluntary test to improve their vote.

1. Ballot paper quiz

The ballot paper quiz is printed on the back of the voting paper. Voters may receive a bonus vote weighting based on their score in the test. No-one should receive a vote less than one full vote because that would be undemocratic, no matter how much they think Nigeria is in Europe or like philosophers called Bruce or Brian or don't correctly tick the stated election policies of the parties. However, they may receive up to five extra votes for a perfect score that demonstrates traits of truly exceptional equality.

2. Ballot paper quiz for candidates and party members

Every elected official standing for office shall themselves also have to fill in this quiz on their ballot paper, and the whole of their election vote shall be weighted by the score they themselves receive on the same test and by the average score received by party members as a whole. An exceptionally talented candidate may lose election if the rest of her party is stupid, or a moronic candidate may in fact be elected if his team is sound.

3. Devote process

In the event that a voter ticks a list of party policies that are incorrect and in fact apply to the opposite party, this voter shall be contacted via postal devote department and given the option to waive their vote rather than vote for people who don't have the policies the voter thought they did. The voter may elect to retain their vote (said candidate has nice teeth and looks honest) or bow low and cancel their vote.

4. Timeframe

Both parties have two weeks in which to elect their official candidate and a further two weeks to campaign for office, at which point the election will take place. The voting shall take place on a single day and the vote counting process shall be completed within four years.
Weighted votes Quote
06-03-2016 , 12:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsilver
Actually I agree with all of you. Weighting votes is a bad idea. Everyone should get an equal vote. That's democracy.

However, those more equal than others should be able to take a completely voluntary test to improve their vote.

1. Ballot paper quiz

The ballot paper quiz is printed on the back of the voting paper. Voters may receive a bonus vote weighting based on their score in the test. No-one should receive a vote less than one full vote because that would be undemocratic, no matter how much they think Nigeria is in Europe or like philosophers called Bruce or Brian or don't correctly tick the stated election policies of the parties. However, they may receive up to five extra votes for a perfect score that demonstrates traits of truly exceptional equality.

That's not how an "equal vote" works. This is literally just weighting votes (based on knowledge), which you just said was a "bad idea." And you think that people can't cheat on quizzes?
Weighted votes Quote
06-03-2016 , 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
That's not how an "equal vote" works. This is literally just weighting votes (based on knowledge), which you just said was a "bad idea." And you think that people can't cheat on quizzes?
Sarcasm clearly isn't on your radar then
Weighted votes Quote
06-03-2016 , 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsilver
Sarcasm clearly isn't on your radar then
Not right now. What is your non-sarcastic take?
Weighted votes Quote
06-03-2016 , 10:33 PM
my non sarcastic take is that it's very difficult to have a hypothetical discussion about political systems. the thread derailed very quickly because nearly e1 assumed i was referring to current events, or had some implicit recommendation or elitist agenda.

my non sarcastic take is that the effect of putting an optional quiz on a ballot paper would be very interesting - not good, not bad, obviously impractical, obviously open to abuse - but just interesting.

i think masque and DS caught on early that i wasn't pushing a barrow and there was also a very interesting observation that non-compulsory voting is in itself a form of weighting. you mentioned that there is a body of study on alternate voting systems and dereds noted that the effect would be fairly linear and obvious - if one party had a bias towards better educated/informed voters then the election outcome would reflect that.

personally i think the outcome might be more interesting and complex than dereds thinks, because the candidates themselves are elected by a democratic process and (as someone pointed out) if the voting process itself changes, then the parties will realign to that new equilibrium.

that process of realignment, if it were to take place, would be fascinating. if parties had to appeal equally to logic, reason, intelligence (all forms) then perhaps there would be a marked and exceptional improvement in the quality of democracy.

anyway, that's my non-sarcastic take and it's certainly evolved to something new through this thread, so thnx.
Weighted votes Quote
06-04-2016 , 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsilver
my non sarcastic take is that it's very difficult to have a hypothetical discussion about political systems. the thread derailed very quickly because nearly e1 assumed i was referring to current events, or had some implicit recommendation or elitist agenda.
I didn't assume that. But you're right it's not easy to have a hypothetical discussion because unless you at least gird yourself with some basic background knowledge and general principles, it's a lot of empty words.

Quote:
my non sarcastic take is that the effect of putting an optional quiz on a ballot paper would be very interesting - not good, not bad, obviously impractical, obviously open to abuse - but just interesting.
I mean, it *is* interesting. But it's interesting not because you can sit around and muse about whatever imaginary system of rule you want to pretend it will be, but because it's completely non-hypothetical. Aside from the fact that a version of that has already been done, it's precisely the arbitrary enfranchisement and disenfranchisement that I have indicated. By the time you get to the point where you're picking the winners and losers, you can hardly be considered to be working within a democracy. People study these things by looking at the world around them and seeing what happens. They don't study these things by closing themselves off from the real world and just imagining what they think might happen.

Quote:
i think masque and DS caught on early that i wasn't pushing a barrow and there was also a very interesting observation that non-compulsory voting is in itself a form of weighting.
By that same concept, people have actually computed the "weight" of votes by state, based on population and electoral college representation and variations of that, and I recall seeing a map that used the actual level of influence in the outcome of presidential elections (battleground states being more valuable than states that are strongly red or blue). These things have been done, and are themselves interesting.

But that's more of an artifact of the fact that we don't have a direct democracy (which is interesting because most people are under the illusion that we are, or at least that we kind of are). There are entire studies dedicated to trying to figure out who votes (hint: it's a lot of old white people).

As I said, if you *actually* wanted to learn about weighted voting systems, you can read about them. If you want to pretend... well... I guess I can't really stop you. Just know that what you're imagining probably doesn't reflect the reality if you were to try to implement it.

Quote:
you mentioned that there is a body of study on alternate voting systems and dereds noted that the effect would be fairly linear and obvious - if one party had a bias towards better educated/informed voters then the election outcome would reflect that.

personally i think the outcome might be more interesting and complex than dereds thinks, because the candidates themselves are elected by a democratic process and (as someone pointed out) if the voting process itself changes, then the parties will realign to that new equilibrium.
Probably, but not in the way you think. I don't think dered's position is as simplistic as you're making it sound.

Quote:
that process of realignment, if it were to take place, would be fascinating. if parties had to appeal equally to logic, reason, intelligence (all forms) then perhaps there would be a marked and exceptional improvement in the quality of democracy.
We called it a "democracy" when we gave slaves three fifths of a vote. I think it would probably be fair to say that such a system is more of an oligarchy. Why? Because the "weighting" has shifted all of the power to the few who are able to pass "the test" (whatever that test is -- be it intellectual or skin color). Because of that, the political parties needn't spend a single moment of attention on those who have no influence, but simply focus on those that have the power. And if you think that this is somehow empowering or beneficial to those who have no influence, you're beyond naive.

The "realignment process" would be interesting, but there's still the gap between imagination and reality. You seem to imagine that this test will *actually* pick out smarter people and that these smarter people will *actually* make better decisions for everyone. The fascinating part will be to see how far off the mark you are when the real life influences of money, power, and corruption take over and crush your idyllic picture, and you can watch it devolve just like every other government devolves when power becomes overly centralized.

Is if "fascinating"? I'll let you decide for yourself. Do you know how many centers for the study of democracy there are?

http://bfy.tw/66EZ

Do some reading and learn some things. It's not good enough to just approach complex questions from a place a naivete and try to fake your way through.
Weighted votes Quote
06-04-2016 , 02:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
I didn't assume that. But you're right it's not easy to have a hypothetical discussion because unless you at least gird yourself with some basic background knowledge and general principles, it's a lot of empty words.



I mean, it *is* interesting. But it's interesting not because you can sit around and muse about whatever imaginary system of rule you want to pretend it will be, but because it's completely non-hypothetical. Aside from the fact that a version of that has already been done, it's precisely the arbitrary enfranchisement and disenfranchisement that I have indicated. By the time you get to the point where you're picking the winners and losers, you can hardly be considered to be working within a democracy. People study these things by looking at the world around them and seeing what happens. They don't study these things by closing themselves off from the real world and just imagining what they think might happen.



By that same concept, people have actually computed the "weight" of votes by state, based on population and electoral college representation and variations of that, and I recall seeing a map that used the actual level of influence in the outcome of presidential elections (battleground states being more valuable than states that are strongly red or blue). These things have been done, and are themselves interesting.

But that's more of an artifact of the fact that we don't have a direct democracy (which is interesting because most people are under the illusion that we are, or at least that we kind of are). There are entire studies dedicated to trying to figure out who votes (hint: it's a lot of old white people).

As I said, if you *actually* wanted to learn about weighted voting systems, you can read about them. If you want to pretend... well... I guess I can't really stop you. Just know that what you're imagining probably doesn't reflect the reality if you were to try to implement it.



Probably, but not in the way you think. I don't think dered's position is as simplistic as you're making it sound.



We called it a "democracy" when we gave slaves three fifths of a vote. I think it would probably be fair to say that such a system is more of an oligarchy. Why? Because the "weighting" has shifted all of the power to the few who are able to pass "the test" (whatever that test is -- be it intellectual or skin color). Because of that, the political parties needn't spend a single moment of attention on those who have no influence, but simply focus on those that have the power. And if you think that this is somehow empowering or beneficial to those who have no influence, you're beyond naive.

The "realignment process" would be interesting, but there's still the gap between imagination and reality. You seem to imagine that this test will *actually* pick out smarter people and that these smarter people will *actually* make better decisions for everyone. The fascinating part will be to see how far off the mark you are when the real life influences of money, power, and corruption take over and crush your idyllic picture, and you can watch it devolve just like every other government devolves when power becomes overly centralized.

Is if "fascinating"? I'll let you decide for yourself. Do you know how many centers for the study of democracy there are?

http://bfy.tw/66EZ

Do some reading and learn some things. It's not good enough to just approach complex questions from a place a naivete and try to fake your way through.
No.
Weighted votes Quote
06-04-2016 , 07:57 AM
If the only threat to "democracy" is the laziness of a person to prove aware of basic things they are voting for, an ethical responsibility they ought to have to begin with if they respect and love the others and the country they belong to, then that democracy is the safest place on earth.

But you know how pathetically far from this we are already (for this laziness to be a problem that hijacks the concept of democracy in anything remotely close to the disenfranchisement the people are imagining). You can pretend all you want what we have is democracy and its a total fallacy. Democracy is only a name today. And it has been failed not only by the pathetic at large voters that fail to vote with their minds but most importantly by politicians and their whore of a system for decades.

If Democracy was created to defeat the evils of Oligarchy, Tyranny, Monarchy and Anarchy then we must never allow it to become one of those things while the name remains gloriously the same...


Those that see this proposed weighting of votes (only a tiny part of the list of changes needed) according to actual important things, that every citizen is able to have with minimal effort, worthy of the kind of civilization provided to them by their own country, as anything remotely related to giving slaves or women no votes or weighted voted in the past, fail to realize that current system is already a tyranny like the one that prevented people from voting in the past based on their color or wealth or cultural/class origin. It has successfully transitioned to this system by manipulating how people superficially vote under ignorance and how they are forced eternally to have no actual saying about the worthless quality of the people that represent them.

Can the people anywhere vote to send to hell all the politicians they have as choice for example? Can they? Like who exactly in this bs mix this year is so glorious for America? Can they vote for change in the rules of the system that produces the kind of candidates we get? Will a mafia system ever move to improve its integrity on its own? Is this the best we can have? What exactly are the precious qualities of these people? What true chance does a real honorable ethical and creative person have to rise to become a candidate and survive the corrupt environment that creates all the "choices" we are spoon fed? If they cannot do that then this system is no longer a true democratic system. It has already shielded itself from true change and the possibility that a citizen with quality can make a difference by rising to become an appealing leader to people that realize the problems of their times and the urgency they demand. All we have is losers voted in their positions by people that have been manipulated to think this is a democracy. Look at their legislative progress. Look at their eternal infighting and partisan behavior. Look at the lies and the poor quality of their debating, the lack of accountability or integrity and the dark interests that support their campaigns. Look at how the media superficially focuses on unimportant things and further divides the population for ratings. And this is a democracy now...

No it is not a democracy. It is simply a system people have the illusion that they actually vote for something when the same monster remains there regardless of who wins elections because the process inside has been already corrupted, it has shielded itself from any true scrutiny and it doesnt represent at all the interests of the population. Instead it serves the goals of a very small minority of power centers and career politicians willing to do whatever it takes to remain in control. It is already a tyranny of many evils that have joined forces. You may protest here claiming but when a party change takes place there are evident differences in many aspects and choice of laws that pass etc. There is a change. But the fact is most of these are not of true substance, they often move in directions the next party elected will try to change to a degree and end up performing a random walk basically rather than a coordinated by all involved progress towards solutions to our common problems. The system essentially has stopped working for the public and is mostly serving others now. It is more important to score wins for the party and those that helped you get elected rather than the future of the country. Politicians from different parties are not really cooperating to find stable solutions that benefit all. Division is perpetuated instead. That polarization further corrupts the voters and makes it harder for them to focus on important details because now they perceive the elections as a life long war for their home team. When you only have 2 choices for example and no way to help individuals inside parties to deviate from their own party in directions that would improve it where is the democracy? As an example look at Republican party. There are a ton of unreasonable positions that if a candidate tries to deviate from they become impossible to get elected. When all you have is the choice between 2 fighting extremes you no longer have a choice. Its like voting for a dictatorship with no opposition. Only the dictatorship here is the conformity of 2 parties joined together in their inability to function for the common good, thriving on their fighting.


How is exactly something a democracy when for example how to spin something, how to create news and how to smear names and tell lies or partial truths has become a professional practice that requires exceptional organization and teams? Whoever is able to do the dirty things needed better than the other guy will be the winner often with rare exceptions, that even if they happen the remaining system will do its best to neutralize such individuals. It is that simple. The population doesnt vote on substance typically. It has all become a show, a parade of illusions, a science of manipulation of perceptions where the true problems are rarely the priority of anyone. How to keep a position and get elected again is the priority. The respect for the truth is not seen as a quality. The politicians are penalized for honesty that distances them from their parties and described as weak if they change their minds or cooperate with opponents or appear skeptic and unwilling to say the things that would please the majorities focusing instead on hard choices. Reckless and irresponsible behavior is offered as virtue. Fake qualities are promoted.

You will not fix any of these by weighting votes inside the current system. Radical changes are needed from inside first. But the weighting of votes and the grading of the work of politicians in a future system could be there precisely to protect the system from returning back to this monster because the population is easy to manipulate again unwilling to put some responsibility in their selection process. Essentially if the voters are sleeping and not performing their duty to punish unethical politicians who do not focus and produce work on the important issues and make it harder to win again then such people elected will corrupt again the system step by step by passing legislation that will recreate the monster. Accountability is therefore the defense for both the voters and the elected representatives. Voters that are naive about the condition of their country are an essential weakness of the system that enables its future corruption.
Weighted votes Quote
06-04-2016 , 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Do some reading and learn some things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsilver
No.
Then you shall forever persist in ignorance. (And your votes don't count.)
Weighted votes Quote
06-04-2016 , 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Then you shall forever persist in ignorance. (And your votes don't count.)
you've now resorted to direct personal attack hence this regrettable need for a proportionate response.

you think I haven't read what you've written and absorbed it in a nanosecond? perhaps what you've written and the Google links/resources you've trotted out are trite low-level off-topic bs with little relevance or precedent? just a thought. you didn't have the ability to distinguish parody from opinion (hint: four years is a long time to count votes) then faked some intolerance for same, nor did you display any capacity to engage and develop some on-topic original ideas that did come out of the thread.

if you've been boiling the frog around here for 25K posts and it takes a new guy to call bs, then so be it. you're trolling.

Last edited by oldsilver; 06-04-2016 at 01:39 PM.
Weighted votes Quote
06-04-2016 , 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsilver
you've now resorted to direct personal attack hence this regrettable need for a proportionate response.
You're the one who said "no" to the suggestion of educating yourself.

Quote:
you think I haven't read what you've written and absorbed it in a nanosecond?
You said "no" so what am I supposed to assume about your level of understanding. Yes? That would be a silly 0% success rate of reading the words that you used in your response.

Quote:
perhaps what you've written and the Google links/resources you've trotted out are trite low-level off-topic bs with little relevance or precedent? just a thought.
It's kind of a bad thought. History seems like it should be a relevant precedent. One would think similarly of the actual study of democracies in a conversation about democratic processes. Do you disagree?

Quote:
you didn't have the ability to distinguish parody from opinion (hint: four years is a long time to count votes) then faked some intolerance for same, nor did you display any capacity to engage and develop some on-topic original ideas that did come out of the thread.
You are free to believe what you want about my posting. Similarly to Masque, I'll simply point out that the fact that you can ramble for a long post with ideas off the top of your head does not mean that your thoughts are either deep or meaningful, or even coherent.

Quote:
if you've been boiling the frog around here for 25K posts and it takes a new guy to call bs, then so be it. you're trolling.
You will notice how you've yet to actually address anything I've said directly. You have yet to actually point out what you perceive to be flaws in my understanding of democracies and "democratic" processes in which you enfranchise or disenfranchise particular individuals on arbitrary bases. In particular, we saw how the available evidence of the use of a knowledge test was actually just a veiled attempt (and thinly veiled through the lens of history) at discriminatory practices.

I'm just telling you that it's not good enough to just imagine a universe in your head. It seems especially prescient in a science forum that we address the actual universe and actual past human behaviors. Do you disagree?
Weighted votes Quote
06-04-2016 , 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsilver
you've now resorted to direct personal attack hence this regrettable need for a proportionate response.

you think I haven't read what you've written and absorbed it in a nanosecond? perhaps what you've written and the Google links/resources you've trotted out are trite low-level off-topic bs with little relevance or precedent? just a thought. you didn't have the ability to distinguish parody from opinion (hint: four years is a long time to count votes) then faked some intolerance for same, nor did you display any capacity to engage and develop some on-topic original ideas that did come out of the thread.

if you've been boiling the frog around here for 25K posts and it takes a new guy to call bs, then so be it. you're trolling.
.
Weighted votes Quote
06-04-2016 , 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsilver
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Then you shall forever persist in ignorance.

Last edited by Aaron W.; 06-04-2016 at 04:33 PM. Reason: Now I am straight up mocking you.
Weighted votes Quote
06-04-2016 , 07:14 PM
Weird. Was the purpose of this thread to put me on Aaron's side in an argument?
Weighted votes Quote
06-04-2016 , 08:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
Weird. Was the purpose of this thread to put me on Aaron's side in an argument?


Since it's a variation of argument he usually makes, how so?
Weighted votes Quote
06-04-2016 , 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
You're the one who said "no" to the suggestion of educating yourself.
I'm quite surprised, but I've woken up refreshed this morning and am genuinely entertained by your stupidity, so I will respond and perhaps you will learn. I doubt it however, as your issue seems to be not with ignorance, but with a general capacity for comprehension.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
You said "no" so what am I supposed to assume about your level of understanding. Yes? That would be a silly 0% success rate of reading the words that you used in your response.
Again with the reading comprehension. My lack of desire to respond to your nonsense is rooted, not in ignorance, but in bemusement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
You are free to believe what you want about my posting. Similarly to Masque, I'll simply point out that the fact that you can ramble for a long post with ideas off the top of your head does not mean that your thoughts are either deep or meaningful, or even coherent.
Your last few posts have indeed been quite long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
You will notice how you've yet to actually address anything I've said directly. You have yet to actually point out what you perceive to be flaws in my understanding of democracies and "democratic" processes in which you enfranchise or disenfranchise particular individuals on arbitrary bases. In particular, we saw how the available evidence of the use of a knowledge test was actually just a veiled attempt (and thinly veiled through the lens of history) at discriminatory practices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
It's kind of a bad thought. History seems like it should be a relevant precedent. One would think similarly of the actual study of democracies in a conversation about democratic processes. Do you disagree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
I'm just telling you that it's not good enough to just imagine a universe in your head. It seems especially prescient in a science forum that we address the actual universe and actual past human behaviors. Do you disagree?
The problems with weighting votes are, as you so humbly point out, disenfranchisement and discrimination. Well done. Give yourself a big elephant stamp. Now let's see...there's an S and an M and a P in SMP. If you can guess what the P stands for, I'm going to give you this big jar of smarties*

If you deny all hypothetical discussion by immediately pointing out the flaws in this or that approach in reference to 'real democracy' then you are entirely missing the point.

Try a different approach. Assume that the quiz on the ballot sheet was mandated and that it was your historic responsibility to structure that quiz in such a way (legislative or logical) that it was least vulnerable to Brian's thinly veiled attempts at autocracy. What would the quiz look like? Who would design it?

Now you're going to say that's impossible, and I'm going to say - sorry, you have no choice. This has been mandated and the exercise here is for you to save the free world by doing the best darn job you can on this ****ty and impossible task.

If you take the challenge, and I hope you do, then you will actually be contributing on-topic and at no point thereafter will I ever say that you are actually proposing in response is your opinion. It's simply a hypothetical and intellectual exercise - as was this thread - as was democracy when it was first conceived, and I don't think I can make that last point too strongly.


*Smarties are Australian lollies that look like and are very similar to M&Ms but are not quite as thick in the center. you'd like them in the US I think.

Last edited by oldsilver; 06-04-2016 at 09:34 PM.
Weighted votes Quote
06-05-2016 , 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsilver
The problems with weighting votes are, as you so humbly point out, disenfranchisement and discrimination. Well done. Give yourself a big elephant stamp. Now let's see...there's an S and an M and a P in SMP. If you can guess what the P stands for, I'm going to give you this big jar of smarties*
Philosophizing is a deeper intellectual exercise than speculating.

Quote:
If you deny all hypothetical discussion by immediately pointing out the flaws in this or that approach in reference to 'real democracy' then you are entirely missing the point.
I don't deny "all" hypothetical discussion. Just hypothetical discussion that is not grounded in some element of reality. If we were really taking such thoughts seriously, then we can just hypothesize that all participants in American-style democracy should all be informed citizens, and there's no reason to change it or address the problems that exist.

Quote:
Try a different approach. Assume that the quiz on the ballot sheet was mandated and that it was your historic responsibility to structure that quiz in such a way (legislative or logical) that it was least vulnerable to Brian's thinly veiled attempts at autocracy. What would the quiz look like? Who would design it?

Now you're going to say that's impossible, and I'm going to say - sorry, you have no choice. This has been mandated and the exercise here is for you to save the free world by doing the best darn job you can on this ****ty and impossible task.
I don't think it's impossible. It's actually really easy.

When I was young, I remember that there were these "contests" that were basically like random drawings, but they had a quiz question that was trivially easy. I recall them being basic arithmetic. That's what those quizzes would be like, and they can be designed by a random number generator.

Why? Because I don't believe that any attempt to actually "measure" something that grants someone the authority to vote is not likely to result in a meaningfully democratic process. I think it denies some of the underlying functions of a democratic process, which is the empowerment of the individual to have an influence on the basis of their citizenship, not on the basis of a particular form of earned merit.

No matter how much of an attempt you make to try to make it so that only "quality" citizens (however you define that) are able to influence the outcomes, the result is unlikely to be something that is equitable, and the most likely losers are those who are not represented. The same structures of power and misinformation are going to be in play. I'd go as far as to claim that it's a fundamental feature of human behavior to be subject to the biases and selfish influences that create the problems that such "democratic" structures form.

A democracy is probably at its healthiest when the most disenfranchised people have the ability to make their voices heard within the democratic process. This can only happen if you do what you can to avoid shutting people out.

Quote:
If you take the challenge, and I hope you do, then you will actually be contributing on-topic and at no point thereafter will I ever say that you are actually proposing in response is your opinion. It's simply a hypothetical and intellectual exercise - as was this thread - as was democracy when it was first conceived, and I don't think I can make that last point too strongly.
I disagree with the premise that an "intellectual exercise" is to create a flawed scenario and speculate aimlessly without the bounds of reality to provide support and direction. There are thousands of conversations where stoned college students "philosophize" about the world around them. The overwhelming majority of those conversations are as much of an intellectual exercise as the repeated lifting of fried potatoes to the mouth is a physical exercise. The actual pursuit of "philosophy" is something much deeper and far more intellectually stimulating than what it seems you think it is.

Last edited by Aaron W.; 06-05-2016 at 01:45 AM.
Weighted votes Quote
06-05-2016 , 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsilver
*Smarties are Australian lollies that look like and are very similar to M&Ms but are not quite as thick in the center. you'd like them in the US I think.
In 'Murica, these are Smarties:

Weighted votes Quote
06-05-2016 , 01:57 AM
Maybe this whole time you didn't even want a democracy at all, but some sort of meritocracy, perhaps in the form of a meritocratic republic?
Weighted votes Quote
06-05-2016 , 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsilver
The problems with weighting votes are, as you so humbly point out, disenfranchisement and discrimination. Well done. Give yourself a big elephant stamp. Now let's see...there's an S and an M and a P in SMP. If you can guess what the P stands for, I'm going to give you this big jar of smarties*
You don't have the philosophical foundations to warrant this level of arrogance.

The onus is on you to explain your hypothesis, if you go back and read your OP and early posts it's quite clear that the question you are asking can be interpreted a number of ways and entails some assumptions that are not clearly explained. This is bad P. Consider your early question

Quote:
could/should votes be weighted by something and if so what would that something be?
This is a very different question to the one you are proposing now because you have assumed that the answer to the above is yes. I, and others, disagree, you should be prepared to explain why you think the answer to the above is yes, this is why I earlier asked when problem you think you're solving, assuming we should weight, which you considered a strawman.

To explain this I'm going to try and break down what your hypothesis should look like to be philosophically interesting.

P1. Society should be so structured as to provide maximally rational outcomes
P2. Democracy does not lead to a society so structured
P3. Weighting votes towards maximally rational outcomes will result in societies structured to provide maximally rational outcomes.
C. We should weight votes towards maximally rational outcomes.

Now if you present the argument like that we can have a disagreement about the premises you're assuming, I don't think P1. is correct, nor clearly does Aaron his posts above are an attack on P1. and P3. suffers because there is no agreement among philosophers or politicians or anyone as to what constitute maximally rational outcomes.

You seem to want to go to C. and ask how we would do that but that's not philosophy.

Last edited by dereds; 06-05-2016 at 03:15 AM.
Weighted votes Quote
06-05-2016 , 04:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsilver
*Smarties are Australian lollies that look like and are very similar to M&Ms but are not quite as thick in the center. you'd like them in the US I think.
They're pommy lollies mate.

More importantly and OT how many smarties in a jar?
Weighted votes Quote
06-05-2016 , 04:24 AM
Why does it have to be maximally rational and not simply pretty rational compared to the bs-fest of morons and criminals we have going on currently.

(eg it is very rational to not have policies that ignore important issues such as climate change, scientific facts, energy production, access to clean water and resources, efficient and secure agriculture, permanent creation of jobs, restriction of the desire of capitalism to hijack societies and victimize more important things to the quality of life of people in order to allow few to accumulate further wealth that eventually will prove irrelevant in revolution anyway - and so much more)

Why not try instead;

P1. Society should be so structured as to provide mostly rational outcomes with room for experimentation and errors to learn.

P2. Naive democracy (without proper qualities to make it real democracy or well represented democracy) does not lead to a society so structured if it doesnt come with some additional properties to defend its virtues from the evils of powerful oligarchy that develops, thriving on manipulating the ignorance and passions of the masses (when not well educated and informed it is very easy).

P3. Weighting votes towards mostly rational outcomes will result in societies structured to provide mostly rational outcomes.


C. We should weight voters towards mostly rational understanding of the current condition of the world and their country (and what is they are voting for) provided we also did a lot of other things (that have to do with accountability of those elected and decent scoring of their performance in office and better filtering/cleaner selection procedures that do not allow easily oligarchy designing forces with power to manipulate the will of the people and offer to the voters a poor selection of pathological candidates under the illusion of democracy ). This eventually will lead to a world where almost all citizens will score high and have equal weight because they became much better than today through this effort. Finally a truly strong democracy is now realized. Nobody that is genuinely interested in improving their country is disenfranchised.

Last edited by masque de Z; 06-05-2016 at 04:36 AM.
Weighted votes Quote

      
m