My 8 children and I love the Demeny proposal. Would probably need to limit it to married families living together or something to avoid incentivizing bad behavior.
There were sound reasons for our original electoral system in the USA and the indirect election of the Senate. However realism frustrates the academic mind.
Academics being without perspective in their fields and fiefdoms are frustrated by nuance and necessary variance and smash the working system… like the small minded children they really are inside.
I refer here to Woodrow Wilson and the 17th Amendment establishing direct election of the Senate.
Democracy has always been a disaster, the Athenians turned on it nearly immediately. Mind you it has the ability to at times muster resources far beyond the alternatives. Even Stalin in 1942 with order 227 was a master of democracy. Read 227 before condemning.
My own (much more feasible, in my opinion) reform would be to introduce voting to all those under 18, but not for free, they'd have to pass a simple test of electoral and political knowledge. A decade or two later gradually raise the minimum automatic voting rights age to 30. And as the pass rate rises the test can be gradually made more difficult.
You now have a significantly more politically educated electorate and you actually did it by *expanding* voting rights rather than contracting them, a historically much more likely to pass policy.
I don't really think there is any shortcut to getting better voters: you just have to educate them. I think that's why democracy broadly works today while it didn't in pre-industrial times: people are just more educated now; literacy makes a huge difference.
Demeny system would be the quickest fix, but it would have to disqualify all those families that support their children with child benefits, or deduct heavily from them in their voting power, to prevent the system from defaulting to the same issue of voters voting for largesse. It would also need to take that power away when these children turn 18, to correct for further biases.
As it stands however, adults with children having that extra power is the necessary balance against the gerontocracy we currently suffer under.
Yup, the 18-year barrier is definitely necessary. I wouldn't disqualify those on child benefits (not yet at any rate) because a race to win more family votes would be a great way out of the fertility sinkhole. Perhaps in the future, if that gets out of control.
You realize that the Military aged “males” in the USA are now “Men” again (feminism dead or senile) and these young men have nothing to lose as it is?
Any electoral reform taking the vote away in America would require a Civil War of utter and complete destruction of the loser, as in Europe 1945. There would be a rifle in every hand, and it’s not as if we haven’t been expecting and preparing for that very thing.
I think you are perhaps too hard with the Athenians. Josiah Ober book on them suggests a good system (here a summary:http://bactra.org/reviews/ober-democracy-and-knowledge.html), and the Athenian democracy was restored sucessfully more than once (but not its Hegemony).
Finally, regarding voting systems, the Medieval Italian republics (Venezia, Florecence, Genoa, etc) and the Pope election are interesting too.
I must admit some combination of Korakys’ suggestion of a fairly difficult exam to be entitled to vote ( preferably the exam would include a fair bit of economics), combined with David Roman’s suggestion to give parents additional votes, is quite appealing. How we get there, short of war and revolution, I don’t know.
Any electoral reform taking the vote away from any living* person in America would require a Civil War of utter and complete destruction of the loser, as in Europe 1945. There would be a rifle in every hand, and it’s not as if we haven’t been expecting and preparing for that very thing.
*be certain it’s difficult enough to disenfranchise the dead.
In America you can’t take away the vote without cause. I propose it could be said you must earn it, work is something we appreciate.
There’s no Constitutional right to vote, that’s at the state level, although the 12th and 19th touch the matter.
A common proposal is taxpayers only vote.
My observation is the soldiers vote cannot be discounted forever or by natures Iron Law only force shall vote. The Athenians required military training to have the vote, the Romans assumed it, when democracy returned in France and later Russia it was the chief incentive. Modern European countries had National Conscription since the 19th century. To wait the sword and its complete commitment with the part of the purse called taxes is unrealistic and unfair.
My own idea is the vote for the Executive should require risk of life by self or family members, or loss therein. Even nurses and security guards risk more than most. The Executive means force at any level Mayor to President.
Taxpayers get the legislature votes, as they should, they pay.
In practice the penniless veteran doesn’t touch the money, the moneyed don’t decide on wars others fight. Golden Sacks want to sack the Dnipro for REE, Golden Sacks can pay veterans.
The people must come to this conclusion before it is policy, America is the eternal Federation.
On the matter of Scholars only vote or their vote is “weighted” suiting the Educated. Oh dear, we’ve had the Rule of Experts in practice and in power since Wilson. Strangely their Expert expertise is in lining their pockets and building fantasy Scholar Theme Parks called “colleges.”
In the fullness of time- a few years ago- their theory marched headlong into reality and now it’s all being toppled. I don’t think this a good idea. The Dominion Voting system had some features that way (rank choice voting) and I read the manual. Yes.
So no.I wouldn’t bring that up.
Our Stakes may be longer and sharper than the Experts Wits or the Judges Writs.
As for “weighing” the votes by the size of the head, there’s a literal meaning to per capita… and indeed we may … in baskets. 🧺
I love sortition and would recommend that is extensively tested at the local level (for example, set up a draw among residents for positions in the town council). The Greeks loved it too, particularly the Athenians, who used it consistently to compensate for democratic excesses (vote-buying, bloc-voting, etc)
We'll never get past one person one vote doesn't election, but much of what you describe is how the parties used to work.
In the olden days when conventions determined the candidate a party put forward, individual blocks, such as churches, trade Unions, and interest groups, that can mobilize people to actually show up at the convention, thus amplifying their voice, would have much more influence in the wheeling and dealing.
The two main problems really facing our democracy in the US are the primary system that allows 30% of the population to dictate the candidates for everyone, and our incredibly small amount of representation where we have only 538 representatives for 300 million people. As to the Senate, California and Texas at al should break themselves up and if they don't want to do that then the lack of representation is the just price to pay for their increased economic power.
The AI thing just sounds like a laundered authoritarianism, with the AI deciding (or more likely than people who programmed it) which candidates they like and then giving people more votes for voting on them.
It seems that a major problem of democracy as currently practiced in the US is that those whom you've identified as not having skin in the game, can (and often do) vote for policies/politicians that provide as many of the perceived benefits as they can get that are enjoyed by those who *do* have skin in the game.
Indeed, these non-skin voters have nothing to lose and everything to gain, at least in the short term. In an era of general societal trust--increasingly impossible due to officially encouraged multiculturalism--some level of mutual concern might tend to moderate the current tendency to strictly vote one's own interest, but in my opinion we are well past that.
Here's a very simple *conceptual* suggestion: weighted voting based on Federal income tax bracket. 0% (anything below the 10% bracket) equals 0 votes; 10% is one vote, increasing by one vote per bracket on up to the top bracket of 37% having 8 votes.
In short, you have to pay taxes to have the vote.
If we wish to preserve the happy fiction that everyone of voting age--whatever that might be--should be able to vote, simply give 0% one vote and increase all the rest by one, up to 9 votes for the 37% bracket.
This requires much more thought than I've given it, and has no chance of being instituted, and won't until the common wisdom that everyone is equal is dissipated.
You identified the biggest issue right at the end: that this kind of proposal has no chance. I think some sort of metric tying voting power to tax paying would be a positive, in a vacuum, but probably with less of a weighting differential: I've known too many highly-paid executives to understand that they having x8 votes as a taxi driver is not a good idea. Demeny voting and other similar arrangements are also effective in that they require fewer adjustments to existing systems.
My 8 children and I love the Demeny proposal. Would probably need to limit it to married families living together or something to avoid incentivizing bad behavior.
There were sound reasons for our original electoral system in the USA and the indirect election of the Senate. However realism frustrates the academic mind.
Academics being without perspective in their fields and fiefdoms are frustrated by nuance and necessary variance and smash the working system… like the small minded children they really are inside.
I refer here to Woodrow Wilson and the 17th Amendment establishing direct election of the Senate.
Democracy has always been a disaster, the Athenians turned on it nearly immediately. Mind you it has the ability to at times muster resources far beyond the alternatives. Even Stalin in 1942 with order 227 was a master of democracy. Read 227 before condemning.
My own (much more feasible, in my opinion) reform would be to introduce voting to all those under 18, but not for free, they'd have to pass a simple test of electoral and political knowledge. A decade or two later gradually raise the minimum automatic voting rights age to 30. And as the pass rate rises the test can be gradually made more difficult.
You now have a significantly more politically educated electorate and you actually did it by *expanding* voting rights rather than contracting them, a historically much more likely to pass policy.
I don't really think there is any shortcut to getting better voters: you just have to educate them. I think that's why democracy broadly works today while it didn't in pre-industrial times: people are just more educated now; literacy makes a huge difference.
Let them earn it, as for education 🤣 er no that’s not working in America.
Demeny system would be the quickest fix, but it would have to disqualify all those families that support their children with child benefits, or deduct heavily from them in their voting power, to prevent the system from defaulting to the same issue of voters voting for largesse. It would also need to take that power away when these children turn 18, to correct for further biases.
As it stands however, adults with children having that extra power is the necessary balance against the gerontocracy we currently suffer under.
Yup, the 18-year barrier is definitely necessary. I wouldn't disqualify those on child benefits (not yet at any rate) because a race to win more family votes would be a great way out of the fertility sinkhole. Perhaps in the future, if that gets out of control.
You realize that the Military aged “males” in the USA are now “Men” again (feminism dead or senile) and these young men have nothing to lose as it is?
Any electoral reform taking the vote away in America would require a Civil War of utter and complete destruction of the loser, as in Europe 1945. There would be a rifle in every hand, and it’s not as if we haven’t been expecting and preparing for that very thing.
Other nations may do as they like.
Thank you for the mention!
I think you are perhaps too hard with the Athenians. Josiah Ober book on them suggests a good system (here a summary:http://bactra.org/reviews/ober-democracy-and-knowledge.html), and the Athenian democracy was restored sucessfully more than once (but not its Hegemony).
Finally, regarding voting systems, the Medieval Italian republics (Venezia, Florecence, Genoa, etc) and the Pope election are interesting too.
I must admit some combination of Korakys’ suggestion of a fairly difficult exam to be entitled to vote ( preferably the exam would include a fair bit of economics), combined with David Roman’s suggestion to give parents additional votes, is quite appealing. How we get there, short of war and revolution, I don’t know.
Any electoral reform taking the vote away from any living* person in America would require a Civil War of utter and complete destruction of the loser, as in Europe 1945. There would be a rifle in every hand, and it’s not as if we haven’t been expecting and preparing for that very thing.
*be certain it’s difficult enough to disenfranchise the dead.
In America you can’t take away the vote without cause. I propose it could be said you must earn it, work is something we appreciate.
There’s no Constitutional right to vote, that’s at the state level, although the 12th and 19th touch the matter.
A common proposal is taxpayers only vote.
My observation is the soldiers vote cannot be discounted forever or by natures Iron Law only force shall vote. The Athenians required military training to have the vote, the Romans assumed it, when democracy returned in France and later Russia it was the chief incentive. Modern European countries had National Conscription since the 19th century. To wait the sword and its complete commitment with the part of the purse called taxes is unrealistic and unfair.
My own idea is the vote for the Executive should require risk of life by self or family members, or loss therein. Even nurses and security guards risk more than most. The Executive means force at any level Mayor to President.
Taxpayers get the legislature votes, as they should, they pay.
In practice the penniless veteran doesn’t touch the money, the moneyed don’t decide on wars others fight. Golden Sacks want to sack the Dnipro for REE, Golden Sacks can pay veterans.
The people must come to this conclusion before it is policy, America is the eternal Federation.
On the matter of Scholars only vote or their vote is “weighted” suiting the Educated. Oh dear, we’ve had the Rule of Experts in practice and in power since Wilson. Strangely their Expert expertise is in lining their pockets and building fantasy Scholar Theme Parks called “colleges.”
In the fullness of time- a few years ago- their theory marched headlong into reality and now it’s all being toppled. I don’t think this a good idea. The Dominion Voting system had some features that way (rank choice voting) and I read the manual. Yes.
So no.I wouldn’t bring that up.
Our Stakes may be longer and sharper than the Experts Wits or the Judges Writs.
As for “weighing” the votes by the size of the head, there’s a literal meaning to per capita… and indeed we may … in baskets. 🧺
How about sortition? At least we do not get worse people than the average ruling us.
I love sortition and would recommend that is extensively tested at the local level (for example, set up a draw among residents for positions in the town council). The Greeks loved it too, particularly the Athenians, who used it consistently to compensate for democratic excesses (vote-buying, bloc-voting, etc)
No one wants it,
We'll never get past one person one vote doesn't election, but much of what you describe is how the parties used to work.
In the olden days when conventions determined the candidate a party put forward, individual blocks, such as churches, trade Unions, and interest groups, that can mobilize people to actually show up at the convention, thus amplifying their voice, would have much more influence in the wheeling and dealing.
The two main problems really facing our democracy in the US are the primary system that allows 30% of the population to dictate the candidates for everyone, and our incredibly small amount of representation where we have only 538 representatives for 300 million people. As to the Senate, California and Texas at al should break themselves up and if they don't want to do that then the lack of representation is the just price to pay for their increased economic power.
The AI thing just sounds like a laundered authoritarianism, with the AI deciding (or more likely than people who programmed it) which candidates they like and then giving people more votes for voting on them.
It seems that a major problem of democracy as currently practiced in the US is that those whom you've identified as not having skin in the game, can (and often do) vote for policies/politicians that provide as many of the perceived benefits as they can get that are enjoyed by those who *do* have skin in the game.
Indeed, these non-skin voters have nothing to lose and everything to gain, at least in the short term. In an era of general societal trust--increasingly impossible due to officially encouraged multiculturalism--some level of mutual concern might tend to moderate the current tendency to strictly vote one's own interest, but in my opinion we are well past that.
Here's a very simple *conceptual* suggestion: weighted voting based on Federal income tax bracket. 0% (anything below the 10% bracket) equals 0 votes; 10% is one vote, increasing by one vote per bracket on up to the top bracket of 37% having 8 votes.
In short, you have to pay taxes to have the vote.
If we wish to preserve the happy fiction that everyone of voting age--whatever that might be--should be able to vote, simply give 0% one vote and increase all the rest by one, up to 9 votes for the 37% bracket.
This requires much more thought than I've given it, and has no chance of being instituted, and won't until the common wisdom that everyone is equal is dissipated.
You identified the biggest issue right at the end: that this kind of proposal has no chance. I think some sort of metric tying voting power to tax paying would be a positive, in a vacuum, but probably with less of a weighting differential: I've known too many highly-paid executives to understand that they having x8 votes as a taxi driver is not a good idea. Demeny voting and other similar arrangements are also effective in that they require fewer adjustments to existing systems.
Really, if we're mainly considering the feasibility of change, the ones we're most likely to get is ranked-choice, and exclusive vote-by-mail.
That's the most likely direction.