Should there ever be a system that allow's some to have a greater number of votes than other's?

Question

Just because the majority thinks something does that make it right. should more intelligent people or those those how impact society more be given a greater vote. Would it be acceptable to grade someone on how useful they are. Will it ever happen?

To spock i ask a question to see what peoples opinions are on it it dosen't mean that i agree or disagree with the question please do not threaten me again or i will report you

Answer 1

The British author, Neville Shute made a point in this in is novel I think it was called, " In The Wet."

It does have some appeal but I hope it will not be adopted because such a scheme is open to even more abuse than the postal votes introduced by this government

Answer 2

Democracy is the politics of ignorance : many vote who have no real understanding of the issues or of the consequences of policies they're voting for. In 'Representative Government' (1861) John Stuart Mill argued for weighted voting; the opinions of the intelligent and informed should count for more than those of lesser mortals. The old franchise, which lasted well into the 20th century, gave extra votes to graduates of Oxford and Cambridge. The great problem is how to pick out reliably the more from the less politically competent. I can't see how this could be done by the state without huge risk of abuse.

Answer 3

There is, it's called the House of Lords. Privileged people either born into a seat or appointed by other privileged people. They have the right to veto legislation passed by the democratically elected House of Commons.

"On March 7, 2007, the House of Commons voted, in principle, in favour of replacing the Lords with an elected chamber (either 100% elected or 80% elected, 20% appointed). This was another step towards legislation to that end. See Reform of the House of Lords. However, the House of Lords, being the upper legislative chamber, rejected this proposal and voted for an entirely appointed House of Lords."

Answer 4

Basic principle of democracy says no.

Quite apart from the ethical side of it, any system like that would be open to a lot of abuse. The people in power could make laws that said that they were going to give more votes to certain groups of people, and then pick groups of people who were more likely to vote for them.

Answer 5

Kind of like like what they had in the USA pre 1964 when only white business men could vote, and definetly no uneducated black folk, or prehaps like in Northern Ireland pre 1968 when Protestants where entitled to more votes than catholics, is that what you mean?

Answer 6

So what you're proposing is only those that *you* consider intelligent should get points? Or those that *you* consider have an impact on society? Hmm, sounds pretty elitist to me. Think I'd rather stick with democracy. The points are useless so maybe you should loosen up?

Answer 7

No. In America all men are equal under the law no matter who your daddy is, how many degrees you have, how much land you own, how many taxes you pay or even if you chose to be a bum.

I often wish there was a test to make sure the voter understands the Constitution but it won't happen.

.

Answer 8

Will,

It won't work. Someone would have to choose the 'smart' people, the 'impact' people. It will be the same deal we have now with the people in power. They choose themselves and others like them - they choose their relatives or relatives of friends. No, I wouldn't want to make it any worse than it is now.

Answer 9

absolutely... I'm a very important man so should be given far more votes than say a woman (who shouldn't be given one at all)


Come on... Seriously... I'm sure we went through something similar in 1939 didn't we?