Jan 27, 2012
Democracy-plan: Educated democratic voting
I have a brief continuation of the previous Nederlog:
1. Democracy-plan: Educated democratic voting
This continues yesterday's
which includes a nice short story by Mark Twain on voting principles. I ended myself on this note:
The main practical problem is how to get a system where the votes of the competent are more important than the votes of the incompetent, and how to make that a fair system that also does not allow its own dictators to be elected democratically.
There are no obviously valid answers, but the current system of one-man-one-vote is obviously fit for getting Hitlers and Mussolinis elected by democratic majority, and therefore not fit for maintaining and furthering a civilized society or for electing intellectually and morally competent governors of various kinds.
Now here is a simple plan for educated democratic voting:
Assume that each year of finished education - that one may in fact take two or three years to complete, or maybe half, if one is a good student - counts as 1.
One way of simplifying this is to consider all adults in any case starting at 1, corresponding to the minimal education everybody in the society must take, and start counting the years from there. (See Mark Twain.)
Suppose there are 10 classes, with 0 to 9 years of completed education on top of the basic education that makes one's vote 1. Suppose the proportional numbers, from low to high are these:
It follows that one who was best educated - 10 years of education after what everyone got - gets under the schema presented and with the numbers assumed a vote which is 16 times as much worth as those who got 1 to 4 years extra education, but only twice as much as one who completed a year less in education than the best educated.
But then from the way the schema was set up, each group has an equal proportional weight as each other group, in the total number of votes in this system (where one voter can vote in for 1 or for more votes, depending on his or her years of completed education), and so the lowly educated have collectively as much voting power by voting as the highly educated, though indeed the better educated have more votes and thus more personal influence than the less well educated.
Then again, those with more votes are those with better education, and if the education the society provides is any good, it must be considered good, on the whole, if the numerically fewer better educated get more personal influence through voting than the numerically more numerous who have less education.
Note that the problem is not to get a supposedly "fair" system, for any system one can think of will be fair in some respects, unfair in others, (1 man 1 vote is fair to the egoism of the average, but unfair to the interests of the average themselves or to the interests of their children, namely to have good governors, rather than clever crooked ones, for example). In fact, the problem is to find a voting system that gives everybody some voice in who will govern society, but without thereby making the effective majority of the votes those of the uneducated, the ignorant and the easily deceived, and also it is well note that the rationale for giving more weight to the votes of the better educated is that in the end it is in the interest of all if the best men and the best plans have a realistic chance of being elected to govern - which they do not have in the 1 man, 1 vote kinds of elective democracies, for there the majority tends to vote for plans and for men they have do not the knowledge or wit to judge properly, and thus what sounds fair - 1 men, 1 vote - tends to give unfair advantage to the rich or to the corrupt, who will buy popularity or who will cleverly deceive the majority.
2. Guiccardini quoted
Indeed, on a personal note: I would be willing to vote on this schema, but have refused to vote since 1971, when voting ceased to compulsory in Holland, because I did not want to engage in a hypocritical ritual where my own vote was weighted away by stadiums full of hardly educated soccer fans, who voted for the political careerists with the most appealing propaganda and lies.
Or as Guiccardini - a good friend of Machiavelli - put it in his "History of Italy" ("Storia Italia"), first published in 1560, on occasion of a schema akin to "one man one vote" being strongly recommended by some in Florence, in the year 1495 AD:
Actually, what Verspucci missed - or feigned not to see: he did belong to the ruling Úlite of Florence - was that under such a schema it will not be "the many" who will rule, because "the many" never rule, except through representatives, but those will rule, usually and normally, who most successfully courted "the many" by deceptions and false promises, and thus got elected as their representatives - by the many who are not well able to judge, but do have the majority in any schema where one man has one vote, regardless of his personal merits and qualifications.
The above mathematical schema of educated democratic voting is a way to measure votes simultaneously by weight and by number: one's vote gets a weight proportional to one's education.
As to ME/CFS (that I prefer to call ME):
Short descriptions of the above:
1. Ten reasons why ME/CFS is a real disease by a professor of medicine of Harvard.
2. Long essay by a professor emeritus of medical chemistry about maltreatment of ME.
3. Explanation of what's happening around ME by an investigative journalist.
4. Report to Canadian Government on ME, by many medical experts.
5. Advice to psychiatrist by a psychiatrist who understands ME is an organic disease
6. English mathematical genius on one's responsibilities in the matter of one's beliefs:
7. A space- and computer-scientist takes a look at psychology.
See also: ME -Documentation and ME - Resources
The last has many files, all on my site to keep them accessible.
|home - index - summaries - top - mail|