It is a common belief in western democracies that all men are equal. But should this be the case? Are we all really equal and should we be? I'm not so much talking about our rights. everybody should have equal access to education, health and public services (i'm not condoning segregation), But when it comes to things like the political process should everybody's votes count as one? should your vote be worth the same as both someone with learning difficulties and Steven Hawkins for example. If there was a system to determine someones ability to make decisions (assuming this system was flawless) would you condone a policy which gives extra weight to someones vote based on their ability to make decisions? If not, why not? If you agree or disagree please give your reasons.
Well yeah, everyones vote should be equal. Hawkins may be smart but i have learned that has no tendancies on peoples political views....Hitchens is a good example.
The proposed system doesn't fall down just because you disagree with an intellectuals political views. There are also a lot of intellectuals who's political views are the complete opposite to hitchens. The point is, Shouldn't smarter people have more say than someone of low intelligence. Is a morons opinion on something as valuable as an intellectuals opinion on it?
No because what we base intelligence on is flawed, if Hitchens is an intellectual because he made up lies and put it in a book and flaunted it about then anyone can be an intellectual
You are missing the point. It's not "should people who agree with you have more of a say". it is "should everybody's vote be equal". it's irrelevant if you currently agree with a particular intellectuals opinion or not I said; assuming the system for determining someones ability to make decisions was flawless. If there was a flawless system for determining someones ability to make a decision and they happen to disagree with you wouldn't that suggest that you have actually made the wrong decision? And if so, Why should your opinion be as valuable as the opinion of someone more likely to have made the correct decision?
Then everybody have to get IQ tests to test intellect of everyone, after that results the voting can be counted IQ result = IQR One Vote will be IQR*10 for example..
Since when do intelligent people make good decisions? Here are some funny quotes from some smart people - http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/01/30/housing-meltdown-smart-people-do-the-stupidest-things/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.burbia.com%2Fnode%2F1578&frame=true
"If there was a system to determine someones ability to make decisions (assuming this system was flawless) would you condone a policy which gives extra weight to someones vote based on their ability to make decisions?"
Give more weight to people who make decisions? So women would have little say because they are some of the most indecisive people out there. That is just stupid base vote weight off an ability to make decisions? I can make decisions easily, give me a lot of vote weight please, thanks.
No, we're not. You're basically advocating that there are two classes of people. Smart enough to participate in democracy, and dumb enough to be excluded. Which then begs the question, shouldn't the people who are smarter, receive a greater share of education, health and public services, because they also fulfill the role of democratic enabler? It's a scary road you are talking about. The only thing worse than treating everyone equal under every circumstance, is treating some people better or worse when it comes to self-determination. It's strange you would even bring this up, because the concept of a democracy is that everyone has a vote. By weighting the votes, or limiting who can vote, it's no longer a democracy. You're creating an elite political class, and a serf class. Basically a retreat into feudalism, while maintaining the pretension of fairness.
As in "ability to make the right decision". Someones ability to take in factual data, News, Current affairs and devise a stratagem for dealing with it. Not their ability to make an arbitrary decision like picking between red and blue. I'm not talking about the ease of which they can make an arbitrary choice, I'm talking about their ability to make good decisions. If i have to dumb this down any more i feel i may be in danger of developing a brain tumor.
I was actually thinking about this issue recently. Giving more weight to a group of people's votes might be a little too far but I think there should be a test that determines if you have any ideea about how stuff works in your country and if you don't get at least 75% of the answers correct you don't get to vote for that ellection.
There are two classes of people, One smart enough to be a part of the decision making, and one dumb enough to trust that the smart ones are better equipped to make decisions than they are. It happens already in many areas of society, So why not also in elections? The logic doesn't follow. There is no reason stupid people should be excluded from public services just because they weren't a part of putting in place public officials in charge of the services. Maybe democracy isn't the ideal system then. if a democracy requires everyone to have an equal vote maybe democracy it's self is flawed. I have no particular sentimental connection to democracy, if we can find a better system democracy should be scrapped. it;s about making it better, Not protecting and retaining democracy.
I see. Weighting is too far, but outright excluding people makes sense. Who determines what is the right answer? Or the right question? An unelected bureaucrat? What is to stop one faction from weighting the questions and answers? How smart is smart enough? We're getting a little philosophical here, but you and I agree on little. Should my understanding of how things should work exclude me from voting? If that's the case, where there are only rational choices, and one rational answer, why even vote in the first place? You've already pre-selected the answers by determining who can vote for them. Carry on then. You've got socialized health care to take care of you.
Very simple. Let's say, for the sake of a hypothetical, that I am much smarter than you. Do you feel comfortable with me making all political decisions for you? And yet history has proven this incorrect, time and time again. The elite class always gets a greater share of the fruits of the lower class. Even today, your PM has a better chance of getting the best emergency care, as quickly as possible, than you do for the same ailment. Because he is part of the political class, he is a higher priority than you, and hence gets more resources. Democracy is flawed. All forms of government that are not self rule are flawed. Democracy was just considered FAIRER because everyone had an opportunity to participate. You still get the tyranny of the majority ruling the minority.
I don't know how it would be determined. It is more a question of if a system for determining it existed and if it were flawless should it be used to decide who gets to vote and how much an individuals vote is weighted. My idea is about having the people who are most likely to make their right decision making the decisions, but if a system could be put in place where the right decision is always made then we should use that system. Even if that means nobody gets a vote and decisions are made by software.
Democracy accomplishes this as the decision makers are involved in campaigns to convince the followers who they should vote for.
Quite honestly i would. Just like i feel comfortable with an accountant looking after my money and a surgeon doing operations on me. I always feel comfortable having someone to do something for me if i know that they are better equipped at doing it (intellectually) than i am. Yeah it does happen. But it shouldn't.
No, men are in no way equal. Although different people have different strengths and weaknesses. Stupidity is rampant and many people neither admit nor change their stupid ways. I agree that the more intelligent persons should get greater chances/weightage in becoming political leaders and also get greater say in the various critical political processes. In the end, it will be better for everyone.
it's only temporary, until they decide to find out the basic principles the state they live in functions