| mai said: But if you really want to talk about it, here's my idea. Every citizen has a point table and earns points for various things like social, business activity or anything else this given society considers "good", for "bad" things like criminal activity you receive penalty. In other words. You have kids? Here's you 10 points per kid. You own an enterprise and create jobs? Here's your 1 point per every $10 you make, etc. The more points you get, the more valuable citizen you are, the more your vote will weight compared to others. It's census, but more flexible than straightforward property qualification. I do not claim it will work or it's any good though :D |
I feel a certain sympathy for the general idea of different people's votes having different weights.
But I see a lot of potential for abuse in your concrete suggestion. First of all, your suggestion really comes down to the idea of measuring every citizen's "value", which definitely doesn't fit with modern humanistic ideals. And even if you ignore that, it's impossible to think of really fair and reasonable measurements.
To me it seems like a better idea that people do not just vote once every several years, but that they can constantly vote on all propositions, and these people's votes have different weights for different topics. For example, a single professor of economics without kids might have a high weight when he votes on questions of economy, but he might have a very low weight when he decides to vote on questions of family. Ideally, these weights should be automatically computed based on a transparent formula - a person that on economic questions very often votes for the option that is later being considered "the right choice" automatically gets a higher weight on economic questions over time.
