NationStates Jolt Archive

Oooh, I know this'll be twitchty!

So how about various levels of being a citizen depending on on'es commitment and willingness to sacrifce.

To take one example:

Example 1:
Everyone who is born in a state and every immegrant who passes a fairly simple test has their basic human rights respected and has a single vote.

Citizens who show above average communal sacrifice (military service of, say 15+ years, or above ordinary charitable donations - as a percentage of their own wealth*, etc.) are alloted an extra say (call it vote 1.5).

Citizens who show extreme sacrifice (serious military sacridice - say loosing a limb in defense of the state, or extraordinary charitable donations - as a percentage of their own wealth**, etc.) are alloted a further extra say (call it 2 votes).

*,** call it 10% and 20% annually of their wealth over an extended period - say 10 years...

To take a concrete example: Bill Gates is worth 50 billion. In 2007, he gives away 10% of what he owns, or $5 billion. If we assume he makes (to take a random number out of the hat) $5 a year, then he'll have given $50 billion to charity in order to have gained an extra half of a vote.

Importantly, this must not be limited to a monitary value. If Joe Blow manages to donate the appropriate proportions, he's equally entitled to an extra share.

And I must reiterate that all citizens recieve the basic protections of their rights regardless.

Assuming that such a system could be wordked out, would you go for it? \

What specific flaws can you point out?

Oooh, I know this'll be twitchty!

So how about various levels of being a citizen depending on on'es commitment and willingness to sacrifce.

To take one example:

Example 1:
Everyone who is born in a state and every immegrant who passes a fairly simple test has their basic human rights respected and has a single vote.

Citizens who show above average communal sacrifice (military service of, say 15+ years, or above ordinary charitable donations - as a percentage of their own wealth*, etc.) are alloted an extra say (call it vote 1.5).

Citizens who show extreme sacrifice (serious military sacridice - say loosing a limb in defense of the state, or extraordinary charitable donations - as a percentage of their own wealth**, etc.) are alloted a further extra say (call it 2 votes).

*,** call it 10% and 20% annually of their wealth over an extended period - say 10 years...

To take a concrete example: Bill Gates is worth 50 billion. In 2007, he gives away 10% of what he owns, or $5 billion. If we assume he makes (to take a random number out of the hat) $5 a year, then he'll have given $50 billion to charity in order to have gained an extra half of a vote.

Importantly, this must not be limited to a monitary value. If Joe Blow manages to donate the appropriate proportions, he's equally entitled to an extra share.

And I must reiterate that all citizens recieve the basic protections of their rights regardless.

Assuming that such a system could be wordked out, would you go for it? \

What specific flaws can you point out?

Sounds like Starship Troopers.

You're right, it is twitchy. But playing along, I think you want a clause that says inherited wealth doesn't count towards getting you any extra votes or vote fractions. Otherwise we'd have Paris Hilton, once she inherits, having three or four votes.

Why give anyone the vote? :)

Too militaristic. Military service is not the only way you can sacrifice yourself for the State or for the happiness and well being of the society and your fellow citizens. I hold firemen in higher regard than soldiers, as a example.

U.S. Offers PlatinumPlus Preferred Citizenship
October 29, 1997 | Issue 32•13

WASHINGTON, DC—In an 86-14 vote, the Senate approved legislation Monday establishing PlatinumPlus Preferred citizenship, an exciting new program offering special benefits and discounts to select members of the U.S.

President Clinton tells a group of PlatinumPlus Preferred citizens about the many benefits they will enjoy as members.

"By becoming a PlatinumPlus citizen, you join an exclusive club of elite Americans," said President Clinton, who signed the bill into law late Monday. "And as part of that club, you'll be eligible for many special benefits, including tax breaks, excusal from jury duty, and vacations at special PlatinumPlus Caribbean resorts, which are off-limits to ordinary, EconoBudget citizenry. It's our way of saying thank you to our best customers."

"And, of course," Clinton added, "there are never any annual fees."

PlatinumPlus citizens—selected according to a number of demographic factors, including age, race and socio-economic status—will enjoy a wide variety of other benefits, including immunity from speeding tickets; separate, no-wait lines at over 50,000 post-office locations nationwide; and wider, more comfortable window seating.

PlatinumPlus citizens Connie and Russell Brodhagen of Del Mar, CA, enjoy a round of golf in a members-only, walled-in golfing facility in East Los Angeles, undisturbed by the surrounding war zone of urban poverty.

After just one year in the club, members can also begin earning extra votes for elections. "Wouldn't you like to earn up to five bonus votes for the next presidential election?" said U.S. Rep. Roger Wicker (R-MS), a co-sponsor of the measure. "With your new PlatinumPlus citizenship, you can."

According to Wicker, those at the highest level of the new program, or "Diamond Club" citizens, will enjoy additional rewards, including a pass good for acquittal from one crime (misdemeanor or felony), a no-interest credit line of up to $500,000 and, for able-bodied male PlatinumPlus members between ages 18 and 35, excusal from the draft should a foreign war arise.

Gordon Alarie, CEO of the Dallas-based Integrated Systems Management Group, was among the first to receive a PlatinumPlus citizenship offer in the mail. "As CEO and founder of a Fortune 500 corporation, I've contributed a great deal to the U.S. over the years," Alarie said. "It's nice to know that now, with the PlatinumPlus Preferred citizenship program, I'll finally start getting something back."

Rosalyn Murcheson Biddle, a Scarsdale, NY, art collector, was also extended an offer to join. "The PlatinumPlus-only express lanes on the highways are nice, and so are the unlimited drinks," Biddle said. "But what I really like is the program's Gold Circle Premium Health Care package, which gets me access to the finest medical care anywhere. It's nice to know that if I ever get too wrapped up in a car-phone conversation and hit another vehicle, emergency workers arriving on the scene will prioritize my injuries over those of any other people who may have been hurt."

Added Biddle: "The free cancer inoculations are a nice plus, too."

Clinton stressed that those not eligible for PlatinumPlus citizenship will still enjoy the many benefits of regular U.S. citizenship, including one free vote in each election, a court-appointed attorney if arrested, and a number of fully guaranteed constitutional rights, including freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.

"To our nation's EconoBudget citizens, I want to assure you that you will still get the same great service from your government that you always have," Clinton said. "The postal delivery, the voting, the Social Security checks—it's all still part of the basic citizenship package. And while, yes, a few certain special privileges will be off-limits to you, that should in no way make you feel like a second-class citizen. Remember, we are all Americans here, no matter how poorly or well we are treated."
God bless you, The Onion. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29869)

Oooh, I know this'll be twitchty!

So how about various levels of being a citizen depending on on'es commitment and willingness to sacrifce.

To take one example:

Example 1:
Everyone who is born in a state and every immegrant who passes a fairly simple test has their basic human rights respected and has a single vote.

Citizens who show above average communal sacrifice (military service of, say 15+ years, or above ordinary charitable donations - as a percentage of their own wealth*, etc.) are alloted an extra say (call it vote 1.5).

Citizens who show extreme sacrifice (serious military sacridice - say loosing a limb in defense of the state, or extraordinary charitable donations - as a percentage of their own wealth**, etc.) are alloted a further extra say (call it 2 votes).

*,** call it 10% and 20% annually of their wealth over an extended period - say 10 years...

To take a concrete example: Bill Gates is worth 50 billion. In 2007, he gives away 10% of what he owns, or $5 billion. If we assume he makes (to take a random number out of the hat) $5 a year, then he'll have given $50 billion to charity in order to have gained an extra half of a vote.

Importantly, this must not be limited to a monitary value. If Joe Blow manages to donate the appropriate proportions, he's equally entitled to an extra share.

And I must reiterate that all citizens recieve the basic protections of their rights regardless.

Assuming that such a system could be wordked out, would you go for it? \

What specific flaws can you point out?

I really don't like it. It seems that if I am unable to donate a percentage of my wealth (being to poor to even risk it) and physically handicapped- Im shit out of luck. I also don't like the idea of people being alloted more than one vote: seems very susceptible to corruption.

That and, as several people pointed out, it would require too many bureaucratic adjustments to make it "fair".

congratulations, you've just created a caste system! Forget all the equality nonsense, now you'll know who your betters are!

Absolutly not. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. No seperation, no privlidges to the few, no rights contingent on service.

Just no.

congratulations, you've just created a caste system! Forget all the equality nonsense, now you'll know who your betters are!

Absolutly not. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. No seperation, no privlidges to the few, no rights contingent on service.

Just no.

I think the difference from a caste system is that you aren't born into each category. Every new person starts at the bottom.

I think the difference from a caste system is that you aren't born into each category. Every new person starts at the bottom.

doesn't really matter. A caste is nothing more than a social position dictated by law or custom. Doesn't have to be by birth. Can be through this system, hell it can even be by lottery.

We have enough of a social caste system in this society as it is. I dislike the idea of creating a legal one.

I think the difference from a caste system is that you aren't born into each category. Every new person starts at the bottom.

Not when everyone who has five votes decides they want to vote their kids in the same privilege. And better yet! limit their exclusive little club so no new members can join.

Military service is far from the only way to serve your country - teachers, doctors, nurses, volunteers, police, fire fighters and so on all form very important sections of society serving the nation.

Donating Cash: People who earn more have a greater portion of their wealth to give. Those on or near the marginal cost of living will be unable to give large portions of their wages due to already being on or close to the line. Bill Gates could give 90% of his earnings in charity and still live in about the same level of luxary he enjoys now, while the majority of the population would find themselves in extreme poverty if they tried the same.

Sounds like Starship Troopers.

There's a strong element of that in there - from the original Heinleinian libertarian stance (based in part on a local revolt by WWII vets against politically corrupt 'machine politicd') (http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm) and not the abusively evil (and misanthropically misreprisentated as facist) reimaging of the novel into film by Paul Verhoeven.

You're right, it is twitchy. But playing along, I think you want a clause that says inherited wealth doesn't count towards getting you any extra votes or vote fractions. Otherwise we'd have Paris Hilton, once she inherits, having three or four votes.

The plan as outlined limits it to a max of 2 x votes, and then aften what amounts to either a major physical sacrifice or a sacrfice of 200% (20% per year over 10 years) of one's wealth.

(The numbers were cjosen for a reason. Oh and that wealth includes all assets. If you misrepresent said assests, I asume the excess will be seized. as fraud charges are brought.

Oooh, I know this'll be twitchty!

So how about various levels of being a citizen depending on on'es commitment and willingness to sacrifce.

To take one example:

Example 1:
Everyone who is born in a state and every immegrant who passes a fairly simple test has their basic human rights respected and has a single vote.

Citizens who show above average communal sacrifice (military service of, say 15+ years, or above ordinary charitable donations - as a percentage of their own wealth*, etc.) are alloted an extra say (call it vote 1.5).

Citizens who show extreme sacrifice (serious military sacridice - say loosing a limb in defense of the state, or extraordinary charitable donations - as a percentage of their own wealth**, etc.) are alloted a further extra say (call it 2 votes).

*,** call it 10% and 20% annually of their wealth over an extended period - say 10 years...

To take a concrete example: Bill Gates is worth 50 billion. In 2007, he gives away 10% of what he owns, or $5 billion. If we assume he makes (to take a random number out of the hat) $5 a year, then he'll have given $50 billion to charity in order to have gained an extra half of a vote.

Importantly, this must not be limited to a monitary value. If Joe Blow manages to donate the appropriate proportions, he's equally entitled to an extra share.

And I must reiterate that all citizens recieve the basic protections of their rights regardless.

Assuming that such a system could be wordked out, would you go for it? \

What specific flaws can you point out?

There should be a tiered system, which determines what level of office you may run for. Everyone may vote, but service--giving of time--should be far more important than monetary measures. Eg: (I will use American titles for expediency, but substitute specific national equivalent as applicable)

1st tier (highest) - required military and civil service (15+ years or honourable discharge)
National Position
-President
-Vice President
-Supreme Court Justice
-Department head

2nd tier - require military and civil service (10+ years or honourable discharge)
Provincial Position
-Governor
-Senator
-Circuit Judge
-Cabinet member

3rd tier - require civil or military service (10+ years)
Representative Position
-State representative (national level)
-State legislator
-Ambassador

4th tier - <10 years civil or military service
-Voter

Alternatively, it can be tiered according to position--ie, Executive positions at one level, Court system on another tier level, State representative a little lower, etc.

There should be a tiered system,

you're not even TRYING to hide making america into a caste system by this method are you?

Sounds like Starship Troopers.

that was my immediate thought on seeing the thread title.

i'm not sure blind patriotism ought to be rewarded with extra voting power. that's all i can think of at the moment.

Too militaristic. Military service is not the only way you can sacrifice yourself for the State or for the happiness and well being of the society and your fellow citizens. I hold firemen in higher regard than soldiers, as a example.

Military service was only one example.

I really don't like it. It seems that if I am unable to donate a percentage of my wealth (being to poor to even risk it) and physically handicapped- Im shit out of luck. I also don't like the idea of people being alloted more than one vote: seems very susceptible to corruption.

I look at it as a fairer version of the Maxist "from each acording to their abilty" maxim...


That and, as several people pointed out, it would require too many bureaucratic adjustments to make it "fair".

That's the only ghalfway reasonable objection I see so far. And I thinkl it's not too big...

I think the difference from a caste system is that you aren't born into each category. Every new person starts at the bottom.

Indeed.

Not when everyone who has five votes decides they want to vote their kids in the same privilege. And better yet! limit their exclusive little club so no new members can join.

Nope. Strictly limited as to both how many votes one can obtain and how one obtains said votes.

Military service is far from the only way to serve your country - teachers, doctors, nurses, volunteers, police, fire fighters and so on all form very important sections of society serving the nation.

And those sectors should be rewarded as well.

Donating Cash: People who earn more have a greater portion of their wealth to give. Those on or near the marginal cost of living will be unable to give large portions of their wages due to already being on or close to the line. Bill Gates could give 90% of his earnings in charity and still live in about the same level of luxary he enjoys now, while the majority of the population would find themselves in extreme poverty if they tried the same.

That's partly the point. Bill Gates, under the scheme outlined above, would be obliged to give away a large portion of his wealth (adjust it as see fit) for the minisqual advantage of an maximum extra .5 or 1 vote.

that was my immediate thought on seeing the thread title.

i'm not sure blind patriotism ought to be rewarded with extra voting power. that's all i can think of at the moment.

I'm a little troubled by the enthusiastic masturbation of the military here...

Military service was only one example.

And those sectors should be rewarded as well.

Enlight me, then.

you're not even TRYING to hide making america into a caste system by this method are you?

Well, I did change "tiered system" from "caste system," thinking it would be received better, but no, I suppose I'm not.

There should be a tiered system, which determines what level of office you may run for. Everyone may vote, but service--giving of time--should be far more important than monetary measures. Eg: (I will use American titles for expediency, but substitute specific national equivalent as applicable)

1st tier (highest) - required military and civil service (15+ years or honourable discharge)
National Position
-President
-Vice President
-Supreme Court Justice
-Department head

2nd tier - require military and civil service (10+ years or honourable discharge)
Provincial Position
-Governor
-Senator
-Circuit Judge
-Cabinet member

3rd tier - require civil or military service (10+ years)
Representative Position
-State representative (national level)
-State legislator
-Ambassador

4th tier - <10 years civil or military service
-Voter

Alternatively, it can be tiered according to position--ie, Executive positions at one level, Court system on another tier level, State representative a little lower, etc.

Nope. Don't like that at all. The base minimum ought to be a regular citizen with voting quals. And service/charity ought only qualify one for a minor advantage.

you're not even TRYING to hide making america into a caste system by this method are you?

Note that I don't agree with the above.

that was my immediate thought on seeing the thread title.

i'm not sure blind patriotism ought to be rewarded with extra voting power. that's all i can think of at the moment.

I'm not looking for blind patriotism. A police officer injured in the cource of preventing a murder or a fireman crippled in putting out a fire would qualify as well. And as suggested above that may well extend to others. The key point is communal sacrifice.

Sounds like Starship Troopers.
No, Starship Troopers had everyone start off as a civilian and the only difference between a civilian and a citizen was the citizen could vote. Also, in Starship Troopers you got citizenship through 2 years of voluntary service, not 15, and you couldn't buy citizenship. I'd prefer the Terran Federation to the system outlined in the OP.

I'm not looking for blind patriotism. A police officer injured in the cource of preventing a murder or a fireman crippled in putting out a fire would qualify as well. And as suggested above that may well extend to others. The key point is communal sacrifice.

so that police officer is a better person than me?

Enlight me, then.

I'd have no prob adding fire services for example. The suggestion was for communal service...

Citizens who show above average communal sacrifice

No, Starship Troopers had everyone start off as a civilian and the only difference between a civilian and a citizen was the citizen could vote.

Indeed the suggested system above (which I should reiterate is not a definative but more of a thought experiment in need of adjustment...) does not at all suggest denying the vote to civilians. Everyone starts off with the vote. Some people earn a fractional better vote.

Also, in Starship Troopers you got citizenship through 2 years of voluntary service, not 15, and you couldn't buy citizenship. I'd prefer the Terran Federation to the system outlined in the OP.

Again, that was simply a numbe tossed out as an example. And it need not be limited to military service.

so that police officer is a better person than me?

Nope. Although that police office may be a better citizen.

Nope. Although that police office may be a better citizen.

So it's ok for the government to discriminate?

So it's ok for the government to discriminate?

POSSIBLY, depending on the grounds, and for a minor reward. The idea is to encourage comunal sprit in a fair manner. Do the minimum for society at largh, and you get the basics, do a fair bit extra and get a little bit extra.

POSSIBLY, depending on the grounds, and for a minor reward. The idea is to encourage comunal sprit in a fair manner. Do the minimum for society at largh, and you get the basics, do a fair bit extra and get a little bit extra.

I happen to think a vote is a MAJOR reward. Two votes effectivly grants you twice the power to influence government than I have.

It allows you to wield twice the influence I do. Twice the power I have. Twice the ability to influence change.

This is minor?

The difference between two votes and one vote is...a vote. The difference of a power to cast one vote seperates the once voting person from the twice voting person.

Similarly the difference of a power to cast one vote seperates the once voting person from the person who can not vote at all.

The difference between someone who can vote once, versus someone who can vote twice is identical to the difference between those who can vote, and who can't. To say a single vote is a minor reward is to say to vote AT ALL is a "minor reward", because the difference between 1 vote and 2, is the same as between 1 vote and none at all.

A vote is power. In a democracy, it is the rawest form of power one can yield. To grant additional power to one group is functionally no different than to remove it from another. Either way the result is the same. One group is able to yield more power in the politcal process than another.

In doing so you create a power disparity. you create a power elite. You create a legal caste. You make people different under the law.

You create a privlidged class.

Such a thing is an abhoration to democracy, it is the antithesis of everything democracy stands for. It can not stand.

Votes should be based on a combination of intelligence and finances.

Something like Votes = (IQ/100) + (Annual Gross Income/10000)

So the average person, who might make 46,000 a year, would get 5.6 votes.

While I of course, would get more like 4,510 votes.

Only thing I can't figure is what a vote of less than 1 means.

Nope. Strictly limited as to both how many votes one can obtain and how one obtains said votes.


Well thats the way you want it be, but not necessarily the way it will end up. Whether you want those with multiple votes to be higher class citizens or not, they will be because they have greater representation. If they politically form, encouraging themselves they have the right to greater power because they've "earned" it, they can change any law they want to. There can be no such thing as a "permanent law" If an immensely powerful bloc wants a law changed they only have to elect people who pretend it doesn't exist or who are willing to overwrite it.

Eh, doesn't matter to me. As long as I'm making money and living well, I could be voteless and lose my citizenship for all I care. Let someone else go off and serve in some foreign war for their half of a ballot.