Which is morally correct, one person-one vote, or one acre-one vote?

Question

Just curious.

Although the majority of people are likely to say one person-one vote, i do wonder if other systems have merit.

People with lots of land have more impact on society, should they have more say ?

I guess I could also ask the same about people with money. People who have £100 million have more impact on society, should they have more say ( in votes ?)

I don't know, just asking.

I know the biggest objection is people shouldn't be able to buy power or votes, but the reality is that people with more land and money have more power so maybe they should have more formal say in the running of the country ?

this used to be the system. Its wasn't all great, but perhaps it had some merits ?

Answer 1

interesting question and I hope you get some good answers. In the past you had to be a land-owner in order to have a vote ... however, this meant that only the interest of the wealthy land-owners were represented in Parliament and the poor had no real representation. I'd suggest a different system - only tax-payers and pensionerse (who have paid tax in the past) can have a vote. Therefore you have the contributors to society who are determining the representation and legislation and the takers (people on benefits) don't have a vote. This is fairer because the contributors/tax-payers will want legislation that encourages jobs and motivates workers which is a more constructive approach to legislation.

Answer 2

This seems like an analogy to The owners of the means of production (the land owners) versus The means of production (those who don't own land). If all the people who have the money and power (the land owners) were the only ones to decide governments then we would be living in anything but a democracy.
Just look at the US to see what the land owners have done for their so-called democracy.
I think it is morally correct for one person-one vote. In some countries it is actually compulsory to vote.

Answer 3

Let me get this straight:

If you are a landowner you can vote; if a lowly serf, you can't.

An interesting question rooted in the concept termed the Divine Rights of Kings. This concept, born in the Middle Ages, essentially grants to the King - and aristocracy - supreme power here on earth because they can trace their genealogy back to King David.

With such blood in their veins, the Aristocracy was not answerable to the populace. They were above the masses because they were closer to God and being close to God they owned the land.

It sounds to me you would like to return to that system; hence, I must wonder if your blood runs blue?

I would assume your proposed system would have merit only if you believe that the public should be ignored and kept in their traditional role of serfdom. You propose a very stratified social system that Oliver Cromwell had a bit of a problem with.

If you are English I imagine your point of view might be considered a return to the good old days. If you are from the States it sounds like such a system is again a return to the olden days when some folks were kept in chains.

In either case, an elitist point of view that betrays an inherent misanthropic mind-set.

I would gently suggest, dear sir, that you read a little of John Locke and try to guard against any further shrinkage of your brain pan from aristocratic inbreeding.

Answer 4

You are assuming that voting is the way to go, though I'd personally prefer a benevolent dictatorship. One person, one vote, I guess would be the proper answer, though I am real uncomfortable with this whole democracy thing. I guess I'm really a closet anarchist, though unending chaos can get old, too. If there really were moral choices as to who would have the vote, I could better justify it based on IQ than property ownership. Interesting question.....

Answer 5

The electoral college and the fact that each state has 2 senators was set up to address this issue. The USA is one person one vote, but there are checks in place to ensure that population centersdon't rule-

In the US, if we went straight to equal represntation by population (got rid of the electoral college and rebalanced the senate by population) the country would be run by people on the coasts- 90 percent of the country's land area would be unrepresented.

Answer 6

I do not agree with allocating voting rights on the basis of assets owned as this will ultimately lead to revolution.
I do however believe that those of working age who are supported by taxpayers should have no voting rights whatsoever.
If through choice or personal circumstances, one takes from rather than contributes to society it is inappropriate to have any say in how that society is governed.
Obviously, pensioners who have paid contributions for their pensions would not fall into this category.

Answer 7

So your could % your son to be conscripted into obligatory national service, he's given a protection rigidity or civilian selection, if he's taking the civilian selection he loses his spectacular to vote, if he's taking the protection rigidity selection he's likewise experienced contained in using and allowed to very own a gun 'the citizen's attack rifle' which he's authorized to apply as he pleases, he can shoot a burglar, an immigrant, a political opponent, submit to in ideas that the police would not be armed in accordance to BNP coverage who've stated that they % to bypass removed from the 'way of life of the police being sole regulation enforcers' so they could have much less potential to act against vigilante communities, who they could additionally ought to enforce potential with their small electoral majority. Your son, or my son, might additionally turn his gun on me or you in the event that they caught us reading The mum or dad and hence betraying the ideals of the party. i'm not making this up, it fairly is all interior the whole BNP electoral manifesto as unfavorable to the shortened version on the internet internet site, which you will discover with a Google. is this this style of england you fairly need?

Answer 8

You have a good question there and that type system worked in many places for hundreds if not thousands of years.

I'm not convinced that a large democracy can actually work because of the tendency towards increasing corruption and voter apathy.