NationStates Jolt Archive

Opening disclaimer: I'm pretty new here, and I haven't seen this topic discussed... no doubt it has been done to death, but it will at the least make a change from religion threads :)

As an aside, jolt's lovely auto-modding of posts for new people will mean that I don't get to make any timely replies, but I'll throw it out there anyway. Here's what I want to know:


In your conception of an ideal democracy, who should get to vote and what strength should each vote carry?

Should everyone get an equal say?

Should some kind of meritocracy exist? If so, who gets the greater say and who decides?

What should the minimum voting age be?

Should prisoners (by way of having violated some sort of social contract) be excluded? If so, should any exclusion be based on what they have actually been convicted of?

Should financial power have any bearing on voting strength?

Should a government be elected by a simple majority?

Should some mechanism (other than a straightforward revolution) exist for citizens to remove their government in short order if (when?) they finally 'go too far'?


I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. These are just a few questions off the top of my head... feel free to ignore any or all of them, or to introduce further questions. I'm interested to see what the spectrum of philosophies on NSG is like on this subject- mainly so that I can better gauge if it is worth spending as much time here as I seem to have been doing of late.

For the record, my own view tends towards some kind of meritocracy - if only because I really don't like the idea of the society I live in being steered by people who believe what they read in the tabloids and think that watching 4-8 hours of soaps/Big Brother/(pick your generic get-them-in-front-of-the-advertising TV production here) is a constructive use of their time.

Furthermore, as a dyed-in-the-wool technophile, I heartily believe that we are reasonably close to the point where more direct democracy is becoming possible. Instead of relying on an election every 4 years and then hoping that your elected representative actually does something representative, rather than kow-towing to a party line which - let's face it - doesn't often have anything to do with what the public want, I believe that more referenda are possible and desirable, and that a system that embraces such inclusion should be instituted as soon as possible.

Naive? Probably. Idealistic? Certainly... by definition, chasing an ideal is a good thing.

Thanks for reading :)

I used to think the voting age should be lowered to 16. Nowadays though I am tending more towards raising it to 35.

Very good first thread.

Cool thread. Welcome to NS General!

Some off-the-top-of-my-head answers:

Voting age? 16. (I believe the legal age of majority should be 16.)

Meritocracy? A great idea in theory, but I don't see any good way to ensure that the system isn't horribly abused. The "literacy requirements" used to exclude black voters spring to mind. I certainly understand how annoying it is when people who can't identify the Bill of Rights are allowed to help elect our leaders, though, particularly given the last 7 years of complete disgrace and corruption that my country has endured.

Should prisoners (by way of having violated some sort of social contract) be excluded?I think it's not only fair, but important to exclude incarcerated criminals from voting. They're a captive group, you see, and it's just far too easy for somebody to coerce them into voting one way or the other. From a broader perspective, if your crimes warranted imprisonment then they certainly warrant a restriction on your participation in government.

Of course, I also think that a huge chunk of the people currently in American prisons shouldn't be there. 99% of "drug offenders" don't belong behind bars, in my opinion.

Should some mechanism (other than a straightforward revolution) exist for citizens to remove their government in short order if (when?) they finally 'go too far'? Such as? I kind of feel like a citizen's overthrow of the government is going to be a revolution no matter what. What else could it be?

Should financial power have any bearing on voting strength?Ideally, absolutely not. Obtaining wealth does not automatically make a person smarter, more rational, more insightful, more moral, or more worthy than they would have been without wealth. Wealth should not alter the value of their voice in the political process.

But realistically? Financial power WILL have a bearing on voting strength. I don't see any way around it.

Should a government be elected by a simple majority? Not all of it.

I don't particularly like the "majority rules" form of government in the first place. Pure democracy is something I find extremely unappealing, because I simply think a lot of things should not be up for a vote.

Each and every democracy is full of morons and idiots who shouldn't be allowed out on the streets, let alone allowed to vote. So, no, everyone should not get an equal say.

I favour a 'citizenship' test. You have to study a year long course (you could do it part-time, distance learning and so on, build up credits etc) where you would have to study elements of history, economics, comparative literature, finance, politics & government, comparative religious theory, non-religious philosophy (e.g. humanism), sociology, international relations and both media and business studies. Should give the student a fairly wide depth of the important things that are going on.

Qualifying pass marks would come from a combination of exam results and well written papers.

Only those who pass get to vote or stand for election to councillor/mayor/member of the legislature and so on. Plus, only those who can be arsed to actually sit up and take notice of what's going on around them and make reasoned decisions (as opposed to the masses of sheep that merely brain-vomit whatever garbage has been fed into their tiny little minds by the media) get to vote.

Minimum voting age not so relevant here... as long as you can pass the test, that's all that counts.

Should prisoners lose their right to vote? Prolly not... the loss of liberty is the punishment, depriving them of the right to vote would be the infliction of a double punishment and so arguably unjust. Besides, they will still have interests in society - for instance, they may be very concerned about prisoner welfare, or may own substantial property holdings - that they would wish to express their opinion on.

Financial power should be irrelevant to voting strength - opens the way for corruption and, personally, I can't see what benefit giving more voting power to the wealthy would bring.

I'd use a single transferable vote system for elections to the UK parliament. Control of parliament would pass to the party that won the most seats.

Government removal... should be done by standard elections all governed by a law that regulates government (term limits, dates for elections yadda yadda yadda) (commonly called a 'constitution' in those countries that have a meaningful democracy, unlike at home in the UK).

I'd avoid direct democracy though ... too inefficient in terms of decision making, besides, if you're always going to the people to ask for decisions, then why bother electing a govt?

Representative democracy is more practical.

Anyone who has responsibility for themselves under law should have a vote. To disenfranchise anyone is an inane preference.

Disdain for 'the people' is the worst form of elitism.

Each and every democracy is full of morons and idiots who shouldn't be allowed out on the streets, let alone allowed to vote. So, no, everyone should not get an equal say.

I favour a 'citizenship' test. You have to study a year long course (you could do it part-time, distance learning and so on, build up credits etc) where you would have to study elements of history, economics, comparative literature, finance, politics & government, comparative religious theory, non-religious philosophy (e.g. humanism), sociology, international relations and both media and business studies. Should give the student a fairly wide depth of the important things that are going on.

Qualifying pass marks would come from a combination of exam results and well written papers.

Only those who pass get to vote or stand for election to councillor/mayor/member of the legislature and so on. Plus, only those who can be arsed to actually sit up and take notice of what's going on around them and make reasoned decisions (as opposed to the masses of sheep that merely brain-vomit whatever garbage has been fed into their tiny little minds by the media) get to vote.

Minimum voting age not so relevant here... as long as you can pass the test, that's all that counts.

Do you really think that a single parent with two jobs is going to have the time and energy to take a year of intensive classes, complete with exams and reports to write? Do you really think a high school kid who already has to work 30 hours per week to help support his family is going to sign up for MORE class work?

And where, pray, will all these classes be taught? In the already-underfunded public schools? How far will the people in shitty neighborhoods be required to commute in order to reach a place that teaches their citizenship classes?

How much will it cost to impose this citizenship schooling program? How many kids could have been sent to real school with that money? How many children could have received needed inoculations? How many food shelves could have been stocked with that money?

Sorry if I'm being a snot about this, but folks really need to remember that a whole lot of their fellow citizens are not privileged suburbanites.


Financial power should be irrelevant to voting strength - opens the way for corruption and, personally, I can't see what benefit giving more voting power to the wealthy would bring.

Strange, then, that you proposed a system that would disproportionately shut out poor voters.

Rich people will have the leisure time and the funding to devote to their citizenship classes. They'll hire expensive private tutors for their kids. Meanwhile, poor people will have to choose between paying the bills and getting to vote.

Anyone who has responsibility for themselves under law should have a vote. To disenfranchise anyone is an inane preference.

Disdain for 'the people' is the worst form of elitism.
Oh come now. I'll bet we could think of at least a couple of forms of elitism that are worse than that.

Cool thread. Welcome to NS General!

Some off-the-top-of-my-head answers:

Voting age? 16. (I believe the legal age of majority should be 16.)

Meritocracy? A great idea in theory, but I don't see any good way to ensure that the system isn't horribly abused. The "literacy requirements" used to exclude black voters spring to mind. I certainly understand how annoying it is when people who can't identify the Bill of Rights are allowed to help elect our leaders, though, particularly given the last 7 years of complete disgrace and corruption that my country has endured.

Should prisoners (by way of having violated some sort of social contract) be excluded?I think it's not only fair, but important to exclude incarcerated criminals from voting. They're a captive group, you see, and it's just far too easy for somebody to coerce them into voting one way or the other. From a broader perspective, if your crimes warranted imprisonment then they certainly warrant a restriction on your participation in government.

Of course, I also think that a huge chunk of the people currently in American prisons shouldn't be there. 99% of "drug offenders" don't belong behind bars, in my opinion.

Should some mechanism (other than a straightforward revolution) exist for citizens to remove their government in short order if (when?) they finally 'go too far'? Such as? I kind of feel like a citizen's overthrow of the government is going to be a revolution no matter what. What else could it be?

Should financial power have any bearing on voting strength?Ideally, absolutely not. Obtaining wealth does not automatically make a person smarter, more rational, more insightful, more moral, or more worthy than they would have been without wealth. Wealth should not alter the value of their voice in the political process.

But realistically? Financial power WILL have a bearing on voting strength. I don't see any way around it.

Should a government be elected by a simple majority? Not all of it.

I don't particularly like the "majority rules" form of government in the first place. Pure democracy is something I find extremely unappealing, because I simply think a lot of things should not be up for a vote.

I endorse this post, these would be almost exactly my answers and written better then I probably would have managed :)

WASP supremacy? Women's rights? These are issues that don't just stem from elitism if that's what you're implying - which perhaps you're not.

In your conception of an ideal democracy, who should get to vote and what strength should each vote carry?

I'm not really a fan of democracy in general. I'd rather have an intelligent computer in charge, as semi-benevolent dictator.

But as we're not at that level yet, I say remove the silly popularity-contest aspect of it. Get rid of voting. Have your MPs (or whatever) selected at random from the population at large, and changed fairly regularly (every five years, or something). It'd also get rid of all that silly party-politics. I don't think you should get the choice to opt-out, and you certainly, certainly must never get the choice to opt-in. People who want power shouldn't have it.

Unfortunately the drawback is that, on average, humans are stupid. Maybe restrict the selection to people with a university education? Yeah, there are probably quite a few intelligent people without, but as (IMO) a university education should be free the only reasons you wouldn't have one are 1) you don't want one, 2) you can't be arsed, 3) you're too stupid to get one. Ideally, of course. There will be exceptions, there always are.

The basic idea's been mentioned in a sci-fi novel... By Arthur C. Clarke, maybe in the Rama series. Possibly it was Asimov. I forget who.

Still, this still leaves humans in charge... I for one will welcome our electronic overlords.

Anyone who has responsibility for themselves under law should have a vote. To disenfranchise anyone is an inane preference.

Disdain for 'the people' is the worst form of elitism.

"The people" are largely a bunch of morons :D

"The people" are largely a bunch of morons :D

Where you come from, perhaps they are but then I'm probably guilty of taking you as representative of the whole :D

EDIT: All in good jest hey?

Opening disclaimer: I'm pretty new here, and I haven't seen this topic discussed... no doubt it has been done to death, but it will at the least make a change from religion threads :)

As an aside, jolt's lovely auto-modding of posts for new people will mean that I don't get to make any timely replies, but I'll throw it out there anyway. Here's what I want to know:
Welcome.:D

I'll try to run off a few quick answers.

In your conception of an ideal democracy, who should get to vote and what strength should each vote carry?
Well, I'll be able to answer that question below, I think.

Should everyone get an equal say?
Well, for one that's completely impossible in a statist system of representative democracy. You and I do not have the same amount of 'say' as our MPs and your MSPs over government policy and legislation. But, so long as as have representative democracy, a system of one man, one vote of equal value should prevail.

Should some kind of meritocracy exist? If so, who gets the greater say and who decides?
What do you mean by meritocracy? Politicians should be chosen by merit, in other words, a competitive election in most circumstances, as opposed to being appointed as yes-men, if that's what you mean.

What should the minimum voting age be?
18 should probably suffice for voting. The idea of my classmates at 16 voting makes me feel quite faint.:p

Should prisoners (by way of having violated some sort of social contract) be excluded? If so, should any exclusion be based on what they have actually been convicted of?
I haven't really decided on this one. I can see the arguments on both sides, but haven't really decided where I stand.

Should financial power have any bearing on voting strength?
No.

Should a government be elected by a simple majority?
Well, I don't think governments should be elected by first past the post, and be able to form a government in Parliament just because they got more votes as a party than anybody else. If we're going to have representative democracy, the system used to elect our representatives should reflect how the people voted as a whole. I don't see what's so special about Neo Labour's 35% of the vote that gives them the right to a parliamentary majority.


Should some mechanism (other than a straightforward revolution) exist for citizens to remove their government in short order if (when?) they finally 'go too far'?
Already (kid of) exists in the UK, it's a motion of no-confidence.

I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. These are just a few questions off the top of my head... feel free to ignore any or all of them, or to introduce further questions. I'm interested to see what the spectrum of philosophies on NSG is like on this subject- mainly so that I can better gauge if it is worth spending as much time here as I seem to have been doing of late.

For the record, my own view tends towards some kind of meritocracy - if only because I really don't like the idea of the society I live in being steered by people who believe what they read in the tabloids and think that watching 4-8 hours of soaps/Big Brother/(pick your generic get-them-in-front-of-the-advertising TV production here) is a constructive use of their time.

Furthermore, as a dyed-in-the-wool technophile, I heartily believe that we are reasonably close to the point where more direct democracy is becoming possible. Instead of relying on an election every 4 years and then hoping that your elected representative actually does something representative, rather than kow-towing to a party line which - let's face it - doesn't often have anything to do with what the public want, I believe that more referenda are possible and desirable, and that a system that embraces such inclusion should be instituted as soon as possible.

Naive? Probably. Idealistic? Certainly... by definition, chasing an ideal is a good thing.

Thanks for reading :)
Well, I think more referenda would be a good thing in the UK, so long as there were strong and enforceable laws to protect minorities, ensure that it is not abused by the press and doesn't meddle with our constitutional structures. I would rather it be left relatively unused, though, with government preferring to not enforce unpopular measures (Id cards, for example), rather to enforce them and have them overturned. It'd be a last resort, really.

Do you really think that a single parent with two jobs is going to have the time and energy to take a year of intensive classes, complete with exams and reports to write? Do you really think a high school kid who already has to work 30 hours per week to help support his family is going to sign up for MORE class work?

My sister held three jobs, was temporarily homeless, raised a family (three kids) with no man around (father became an alcoholic, and a psychotic one at that) and still studied for basic education (making up for the opportunities she ignored in school), further ed (pre-university) and then did a degree in psychology and computer science. She now runs several courses in computing for a local higher education centre. I'm very proud of her.

Just because you have difficulties in your life does not entitle you to go 'oh woes and noes' and throw your hands up in horror. If you want something, you go out and get it and don't let anything get in your way. So yes, a single parent could go and get the citizenship papers if she wanted. Yes, a high school kid could study for the citizenship papers if he wanted (besides, he could always wait until after highschool. Plus, he may well be eligible for a lot of exemptions depending upon the nature of the course he's doing).

Secondly, let's keep in mind the level at which the test would be pitched at. I'm thinking the level attainable by your average 16 year old. It's not terribly arduous - just enough to introduce the student to a wide range of subjects and give them the critical thinking tools to go out and find out for themselves. Plus, the test is there to weed out the people who genuinely care about their polity as opposes to the reality-tv consuming, other people's opinion-spouting nobodies. Why would we want to put our future in their hands?


And where, pray, will all these classes be taught? In the already-underfunded public schools? How far will the people in shitty neighborhoods be required to commute in order to reach a place that teaches their citizenship classes?


Love the moralistic self-righteous tone here! I can almost see you sniffing in idignation! :D

Where is anything taught? How are schools funded normally? (personally I think the education system should be privatised, but hey, that's another debate), how far do people in shitty neighbourhoods have to commute for regular work and jobs etc anyway?

Just leave it to the free market, it will provide services dealing with these objections. Plus, remember, doing the citizenship course ain't compulsory. You don't have to do it. If it's too much effort for you, just sit back, relax, watch TV while enjoying your government-funded (read taxpayer-funded) welfare checks, while the growed-ups who stop whining and did the course and the paper make all the tough, brainy-hurty decisions for you :p


How much will it cost to impose this citizenship schooling program? How many kids could have been sent to real school with that money? How many children could have received needed inoculations? How many food shelves could have been stocked with that money?

Ha ha ha ha ha! this is the 'remember the poor little kids starving in Africa' argument that my mum used to use on me to guilt-trip me into eating yucky brussels sprouts! This is an argument not to do anything, ever - for instance ...Q let's put on a celebration to mark the bicentennial of our city! A How many children could receive innoculations with that? Q: let's spend money encouraging people to quit smoking? A: How many children could receive innoculations with that? Q: Let's give money to childline, a children's care/safety helpline?! A: How many children could receive innoculations with that?

Although it's sensible to look at opportunity costs, it's not sensible to rule out everything on the base of opportunity costs. There are benefits to taking a course of action - in this case improving the vitality of our democracy, a worthy cause in and of itself. Regardless of the amount of children innoculated, or not.

In any event, from your line of thinking, you appear to be one of those poor, deluded socialists who favour a statist solution to everything. No doubt you will reject any idea/programme that is not statist in nature. So you probably won't accept what I have to say next... the simple answer is this ... it won't cost the state (read, taxpayer) much to administer the programme (so there's little in the way of opportunity cost examples you have given) as it will largely be paid for out of private hands. So no funds will be diverted away from those poor little-ickle sickly children.
[/QUOTE]



Strange, then, that you proposed a system that would disproportionately shut out poor voters.

Not necessarily. If someone wants something enough then he, or she, will go out and find a way to do it. If they don't want to do it, then they won't. If they do want to do it, but can't be arsed to find a way to do it, then I don't want to listen to their whinging.


Rich people will have the leisure time and the funding to devote to their citizenship classes. They'll hire expensive private tutors for their kids. Meanwhile, poor people will have to choose between paying the bills and getting to vote.

Not necessarily. If someone wants something enough then he, or she, will go out and find a way to do it. Plus, there would likely be a considerable body of charities that spring up to fund passing the course in an attempt to widen suffrage.

In your conception of an ideal democracy, who should get to vote and what strength should each vote carry?

Anyone who can understand the issues at hand.

Even if you're not "voting age", any decision made by the nation's politicians will affect you period. It doesn't matter how old or young you are, the decisions made now can affect you later if they are bad decisions.

This is why I favour lower voting ages either based on one's ability to pass a comprehension test of basic political issues as well as modern issues facing the nation so that the person can understand what they will be encountering.

Should everyone get an equal say?

It's not a democracy if not everyone has an equal say.

Should some kind of meritocracy exist? If so, who gets the greater say and who decides?

Terrible idea. What makes one's opinion more valid than any others?

What should the minimum voting age be?

Either 16 or based on the results of a comprehension test. Being young doesn't automatically mean one is out of touch with reality. There are plenty of adults who can vote who don't know the check mark on the ballot card from the hole in their ass.

Should prisoners (by way of having violated some sort of social contract) be excluded? If so, should any exclusion be based on what they have actually been convicted of?

It should be on a case by case basis, though as a general rule of thumb, violent criminals and those who have defrauded society should be excluded because they have shown to be socially unable to function at a level that makes them productive members of society.

Should financial power have any bearing on voting strength?

If anything it should have zero influence.

Should a government be elected by a simple majority?

It should be elected based on a combination of the popular vote plus the first-past-the-post system to create a balanced government.

Should some mechanism (other than a straightforward revolution) exist for citizens to remove their government in short order if (when?) they finally 'go too far'?

Yes. Governments that have the majority of power will not give it up easily.

Ouch! Touche! :D


[/QUOTE]Where you come from, perhaps they are but then I'm probably guilty of taking you as representative of the whole :D

EDIT: All in good jest hey?

An interesting take is shown in "In the wet" by Neville Shute. Written in 1983, it describes a Britain after 50 years of socialism. The voting system proposed for this 'future Britain' is kind of interesting -

Shute described a version of democracy where 'one man, one vote' was just the basic entitlement. Extra votes would be allocated for life achievements:
1) Reaching the age of eighteen
2) Higher education or gaining a commission in the armed forces
3) Earning one's living overseas for two years
4) Raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing
5) Being an official of a Christian church
6) Having a high earned income
7) By Royal Charter at the Queen's discretion

I can see the reasoning behind most of these (the individual having put more into society and/or *should* have a better understanding of its workings, added in that a few of them are mutually exclusive)

I do have to say that I don't know enough about this to say whether it would be a better idea or not, I just think it is an interesting one - but definitely needs modifying a little and bringing into current times).

(Note: one of the changes would be to set 5) to being an official of a recognised religion - and possibly other nation/world-wide socially orientated groups e.g., Scouts etc.)

But as we're not at that level yet, I say remove the silly popularity-contest aspect of it. Get rid of voting. Have your MPs (or whatever) selected at random from the population at large, and changed fairly regularly (every five years, or something). It'd also get rid of all that silly party-politics. I don't think you should get the choice to opt-out, and you certainly, certainly must never get the choice to opt-in. People who want power shouldn't have it.
That worked for the ancient Greeks and sometimes it does feel like filling the parliament with randomly selected citizens would reach better results then filling it with politicians.


Lately I've been thinking about a system where the power is split between a direct democracy, a meritocracy and the courts...

All ideological and big decisions are made by the people through direct democracy. Such as "Lower CO2 emissions to a sustainable level." or "Provide free school for all kids.". But nothing more detailed to keep the number of votes down and gather up a bunch of decisions to vote about all at the same time. That way the people get exactly what they want.

The government is a pragmatic meritocracy that decides all the details about what the best way to do what the people want is. In the CO2 example they'd hire scientists to figure out what level of CO2 emissions is sustainable, engineers to figure out how to reach that level and experts in economics to figure out how fast the country can afford to lower the emissions. That way everything is done right and populist PR monkeys can't mess everything up.

It is illegal for the government deviate from their mission to carry out the people's will in the best way possible and it is transperant so they can't hide any corruption. The courts keep the government on track by punishing everyone who deviates and you can't have a government job after being sentanced for this.

...wonder if that'd work.:confused:

An interesting take is shown the wet' by Neville Shute. Written in 1983, it describes a Britain after 50 years of socialism. The voting system proposed for this 'future Britain' is kind of interesting -

Shute described a version of democracy where 'one man, one vote' was just the basic entitlement. Extra votes would be allocated for life achievements:
1) Reaching the age of eighteen
2) Higher education or gaining a commission in the armed forces
3) Earning one's living overseas for two years
4) Raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing
5) Being an official of a Christian church
6) Having a high earned income
7) By Royal Charter at the Queen's discretion

I can see the reasoning behind most of these (the individual having put more into society and/or *should* have a better understanding of its workings, added in that a few of them are mutually exclusive)

I do have to say that I don't know enough about this to say whether it would be a better idea or not, I just think it is an interesting one - but definitely needs modifying a little and bringing into current times).

(Note: one of the changes would be to set 5) to being an official of a recognised religion - and possibly other nation/world-wide socially orientated groups e.g., Scouts etc.)
Now that certainly is an interesting idea!

Everybody has a voice in government, but you have a chance to earn additional voice based on personal achievement.

I'd take issue with some of the particular "achievements" listed above, but it's a cool system nonetheless.

Now that certainly is an interesting idea!

Everybody has a voice in government, but you have a chance to earn additional voice based on personal achievement.

I'd take issue with some of the particular "achievements" listed above, but it's a cool system nonetheless.

Yeah, I do agree that they all need tweaking a bit (and a couple flat out changing), but considering the book was written in 1983 it isn't too bad a list (and there are a few things in the book which would probably make it very difficult to publish these days)

*...* I'm interested to see what the spectrum of philosophies on NSG is like on this subject- mainly so that I can better gauge if it is worth spending as much time here as I seem to have been doing of late.
*...*

What you need is a POLL. Far more people respond to a poll than actually post to a thread.

May I suggest options like this:

1. I am for the free market in everything. Including slaves.
2. I support the WTO, but only because the UN is so lame.
3. I am a Communist. Since the Cold War is over, bugger it, I'm a Stalinist.
4. I am a Libertarian. I score with every Librarian I meet, we talk spelling.
5. I am a Christian Democrat. We elect our own God.
6. I am a firm believer in "whatever you do, it's right." I own a gun.
7. I am a Satanist. Politics is for losers who can't do an incantation.
8. Mryth. That is, I suck up to anything that vaguely resembles power.
9. BWAAHAHA! I pwn!

EDIT: Y'all know this is a joke, right? Fact is, I posted it before reading the OP right thru. Carry on.

Yeah, I do agree that they all need tweaking a bit (and a couple flat out changing), but considering the book was written in 1983 it isn't too bad a list (and there are a few things in the book which would probably make it very difficult to publish these days)

I'd have an issue with every single one!

1) Reaching the age of eighteen
It should be as soon as you are legally responsible for yourself, that would be the question here

2) Higher education or gaining a commission in the armed forces
Plenty of people are very successful and/or intelligent and actually chosen not to take higher education since their chosen profession does not necessitate that higher education

3) Earning one's living overseas for two years
What? Why?

4) Raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing
Honestly now - people divorce for many reasons, often good reasons

5) Being an official of a Christian church
I'd rather not get into this one :)

6) Having a high earned income
As opposed to those who choose to do jobs that don't earn a high income

7) By Royal Charter at the Queen's discretion
I'd rather not get into this one either

Having any parameters on voting against anyone who has legal responsibility for themselves is exclusive, you simply can't account for all the exceptions and it would simply add to the administrative growth we're already paying too much for.

Opening disclaimer: I'm pretty new here, and I haven't seen this topic discussed... no doubt it has been done to death, but it will at the least make a change from religion threads :)

As an aside, jolt's lovely auto-modding of posts for new people will mean that I don't get to make any timely replies, but I'll throw it out there anyway. Here's what I want to know:

I'll go for this one. Shoot.


In your conception of an ideal democracy, who should get to vote and what strength should each vote carry?

Each vote should count for +1 equally across the board, and I'd do a double-application standard. I'd say from 15 up for voting.

Should everyone get an equal say?

A democracy without equal say isn't a democracy at all.

Should some kind of meritocracy exist? If so, who gets the greater say and who decides?

Meritocracy... I'd like to see that in that everyone would get equal opportunity and that the best rise up to do... stuff.

What should the minimum voting age be?

15

Should prisoners (by way of having violated some sort of social contract) be excluded? If so, should any exclusion be based on what they have actually been convicted of?

After they're through the penal system, they ought to be reformed.

Should financial power have any bearing on voting strength?

NO

Should a government be elected by a simple majority?

Yes, since all candidates will be equal under my system.

Should some mechanism (other than a straightforward revolution) exist for citizens to remove their government in short order when they finally 'go too far'?

Probably, but I don't see how that could work without its own problems.

hmm, ok I will try and defend a bit here (more from the point of the Author rather than any attempt at real intergration)

1) Reaching the age of eighteen
I think this was meant to be the baseline vote that everyone had,

2) Higher education or gaining a commission in the armed forces
Successful people get given an extra vote later on, and it is presumed that going through higher ed. (esp before most of the micky-mouse degrees etc) normally means a more rational and informed view on politics (I did say normally)

3) Earning one's living overseas for two years
I had trouble with this one, I think what was meant was that by living internationally for a while you had a better understanding of the more global issues around.

4) Raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing
This one was to help try and keep a stable household, which should help towards a more stable local community IIRC (and not marrying before you were ready)

5) Being an official of a Christian church
The idea behind this one was that the officials helped significantly in the community, and were often confided in. In my original post I did say how I thought this should be updated to bring it in line with modern day culture.

6) Having a high earned income
More local verson of making a living abroad, if you can make a lot of money then you generally have more of an understanding of the current issues (and an incentive to keep a stable economy etc)

7) By Royal Charter at the Queen's discretion
In the book this was awarded for acts of heroism (kinda of like a non-post-humous Victoria Cross)

As I said, this is mainly defending the arguments for them in the context of the book, but most could easily be bought into the modern world without too much trouble.

In your conception of an ideal democracy, who should get to vote and what strength should each vote carry?

Should everyone get an equal say?Yes. Each vote should have equal strength, and everyone of voting age should get a vote -i.e. direct democracy.

Should some kind of meritocracy exist? If so, who gets the greater say and who decides?No, Such an idea is problematic for many reasons. One of which is that there is no objective definition of merit to use.

What should the minimum voting age be?Hm. I'd say 16, as schooling should be done by then anyway.

Should prisoners (by way of having violated some sort of social contract) be excluded? If so, should any exclusion be based on what they have actually been convicted of?No. Then again, I don't believe in prisons.

Should financial power have any bearing on voting strength?No. The best way of making sure of this is for everyone to have equal financial power.

Should a government be elected by a simple majority?Well, there wouldn't be elections, each member of the community would vote on each issue.
I suppose deciding the vote by a simple majority is fine, but I don't entirely object to making it a supermajority or consensus if need be.

Should some mechanism (other than a straightforward revolution) exist for citizens to remove their government in short order if (when?) they finally 'go too far'?Yes. Secession.

*snip*

I understand, I think my issue is that by creating any parameters for the ability to vote simply leads to elitism about what people think makes for a better person.

The only valid parameter I can think of is legal responsibility, those who are affected by any policy made.

I understand, I think my issue is that by creating any parameters for the ability to vote simply leads to elitism about what people think makes for a better person.

The only valid parameter I can think of is legal responsibility, those who are affected by any policy made.

Ah I see, I think that was at least attempted to be addressed by everyone getting one vote anyway, and by that most of the options are/should be open to anyone anyway (making a living abroad/having lots of money obv. aren't open to all, but the rest near enough is)

I do agree that this does have it's faults (and have no idea how, or even if it could ever be properly and fairly implimented), I just feel that it's a neat idea to think about.

On the other hand elitism is kinda rife anyway, with everyone judging everyone as to how-good-a person they all are, but I suppose this would help put a more quantifiable standard on it.