You could also make the counterargument that older voters are wiser and have more experience and can make more sound decisions about the future of their country and should therefore have a heavier influence.
I personally think you should be able to vote on an issue in proportion to how much you care about it, but I'm not sure about the best way to go about that. One idea I've read about is to sell votes starting at $1 and the price of your next vote (you can vote as many times as you want) increases by the square of the total votes purchased (i.e. $1, $4, $9...) so that by the 100th vote you'd have to spend $10,000. But that wouldn't be a popular idea as it allows the mega rich to buy lots of votes.
This is really interesting. I do fear it'll cause exhaustion techniques.
This may not happen in isolated experiments, but if you build a political system on that concept, let it run for decades, in a world where a political decision can shift tens of billions of dollars (e.g. a fiscal change for banks, an environmental law for the dairy industry, etc), you'll see the system get gamed.
e.g. say I propose 100 bs bills to repeal gay marriage and abortion rights. I expect to lose, but opponents expend all their credits. Then I propose a law banning muslims and mexicans and put all my credits behind it. The end result is they get to keep what they had, status quo, and I get to pass something ridiculous.
Of course it works both ways, but my point is that you're creating a system where volume of bills is a strategy. And strategic, efficient use of credits, starts to matter. Such that I may choose NOT to vote for something I care about, because that credit has a premium on an even more important bill I fear might be proposed, which I absolutely have to put my weight behind. And an incentive not to vote doesn't sound like a system we should work towards.
At the end of the day, making something scarce like you propose does two things; 1) it makes things more efficient and meaningful, you don't play around with scarce things. That's great. But 2) It puts a cap on it, it's limited in amount, and in the context of exercising your vote, voicing your opinion, that's probably not something we should cap for people.
We already have this with financing campaigns (credits being money, which is both scarce and to some extent capped for campaign contributions), but I don't think it's ultimately (although super interesting) the right thing to do for the actual act of voting.
The particular strategy that you propose for gaming the system assumes that voting events are scattered throughout a term (I assume there is some period or term after which everyone's 100 votes are replenished?) rather than all being on the same day. If this is the case then another problem is the privacy issue that arises when the state has to track how many votes each citizen has left.
Both problems are solved if there is a single event each term, where you get a single ballot containing all the questions for that term and get to fill in at most N bubbles on the ballot, with zero or more for each question.
Such a system probably still has undesirable properties, though I'm struggling to contrive a good example of one at the moment.
I think the idea that you should be able to vote on an issue according to how much you care about it tries to fend off one problem (uninformed people vote carelessly) but creates many more. For example: How should I know in advance how important an issue will be to me in comparison to votes that nobody even thinks about right now? And is somebody who is really angry about immigration into their country really going to investigate the problem thoroughly (because they "care so much") or simply voting based on their gut?
From my perspective there are so many problems with referendums that it might not be possible to find a solution at all. They have become a way to destabilize the current government although those are the elected officials. And still, in a general election there would probably be a support for the established parties in Britain. This shows to me an unsolvable discrepancy between referendums and elections.
"You could also make the counterargument that older voters are wiser and have more experience and can make more sound decisions about the future of their country and should therefore have a heavier influence."
> I personally think you should be able to vote on an issue in proportion to how much you care about it
You already are. Care enough and you can join grass roots movements who are trying to influence the population to vote a certain way. Afaik, the Brexiters were a grass root campaign and they managed to multiply their votes by convincing the public to vote to leave.
That would just give more influence to people with more money. We have enough of that as it is and I don't think it's a good thing.
And as a counterargument to older people being wiser older people tend to get very nostalgic about the old day and selectively remembering only the good things so I wouldn't trust the judgement of a random older person more.
> You could also make the counterargument that older voters are wiser and have more experience and can make more sound decisions about the future of their country and should therefore have a heavier influence.
Yes, but it's a different argument for a different system or principle.
i.e., the democratic principle is that one can influence the governance of oneself, whether directly or indirectly, you vote on the governance of the society you live in. Rule of the people.
In line with that principle is his suggestion to weight vote by age. i.e., as a proxy for the duration or degree to which you'll live in said society under any given proposed policy, is heavier for young people than old people, simply because young people live longer in these societies under these policies, on average. Such that these people who live 'more' under this policy, could be argued to deserve a bigger influence. In the same way that I as a European can't and shouldn't be able to vote on US domestic policy because I don't live there, and in the same way there've been (pipedream) ideas for the world to receive a minor vote in US (foreign) policy, because they're subjected to it so much. It's all in line with democratic principles.
Your argument is a valid one, too, but it's linked on another principle, a more technocratic one i.e. those who are educated ought to govern. That's not a very democratic principle (although I'm not ruling it out on that basis, democracy is imo the least worst system, not a system to be blindly put on a permanent pedestal).
By and large I think people tend to favour the former (democratic) over the latter (technocratic) principle. And within that context, a minor degree of age-weighing makes some sense, on paper.
In practice it's hard to execute, easy to abuse, and merely captures a democratic proxy. i.e. you don't get to weigh in young people who die early, who migrate, and if you do weigh things, how much would young people get a bonus for, 5%? 10%? It becomes an impossible political game that I don't think makes sense in the real world, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Paying for votes I think is a terrible idea by the way. About making the proportion of caring matter, I think you may realise there's already something basic like that, which is deciding whether to vote or not in the first place. We've seen time and time again, votes going differently from the polls, because people who got approached on the phone had an opinion but couldn't care enough to exercise it with effort by voting.
I did ponder over this myself in recent weeks. I wondered whether there should be a age limit on votes, whether votes should be weighted, and even wondered whether there should be a quick multiple choice test that you have to pass before voting. Unfortunately the first two points go against the point of democracy - even if it might feel unfair to those are the greatest impacted by large demographics of people who are least affected but have strong opinions.
The entrance exam idea is a little more complex though. The idea came about because I was frustrated by the number of people I'd spoken to who voted for a particular campaign while admitting they didn't really follow the campaign but just wanted "change". I saw it with a lot of UKIP supporters who hadn't read their manifesto. I also saw it with the EU referendum with friends that were unaware of any of the "Brexit" arguments but voted out anyway. I think it's weird - in fact borderline dangerous - to use ones vote to decide on a topic which one has intentionally chosen not to educate one's self on. However how do you test that one is informed without biasing the ballot? I think that could be an impossible challenge - and even if it was possible, it would be too easy to abuse at some point further down the line. So that eliminates that possibility as well.
Giving everyone an equal vote is the fundamental principle of democracy. And as much as we might complain about biases from specific demographics skewing the outcome, be that the older generation, younger generation, politically literate, racist, socialist, or whatever; we just have to live with the results. After all, as much as I might disagree with some agendas, there's others I agree with which I'm sure other demographics detest on principles that are as reasoned as the arguments I consider to be true. Such is the nature of individuals.
Every voter is required to write a test on the matter being voted on. And then their vote is weighted on the marks they got for the test.
That way people who have no idea what they are voting for have little say in the matter. And the people who really care about the issues will make sure they know how their vote will affect things, and they get a greater say in the matter.
And how do you grade the test? Certainly if there was objective criteria for what would happen in this case (In/Out), there'd be no need for a vote at all!
On top of that, why shouldn't someone be able to vote on the basis of purely not wanting to be in the EU? Or voting with someone based on their perceived moral value? Or any other criteria?
I'm hardly pro-democracy, but this doesn't seem like a democratic solution.
> And how do you grade the test? Certainly if there was objective criteria...
It would have to be on whatever objective facts are available. But in situations like this that could be rather difficult.
> on the basis of purely not wanting to be in the EU?
IMHO making big decisions based purely on your feelings is always a bad idea.
> but this doesn't seem like a democratic solution
It's not democratic at all. But I'm just throwing around ideas for interest's sake. Until a provably better system comes around, I'd choose to live in a democratic country.
I'm not mocking you - just disagreeing with one of your premises.
While I doubt anyone will ever produce a concrete proposal for a testing system that is not too problematic for me to support it, I am not dismayed in the least by the prospect of losing voters who are not willing to invest the mental energy required by a 20-minute test on the topic of the vote.
You seem to assume that a reduction in voter turnout is unconditionally bad. I disagree.
Well the issue is the younger voters tend to be the most idealistic while at the same time being the most unrealistic. As in, they haven't been around long enough to understand the different between what politicians say and what they are saying.
I am going to go with the older generations simply remembering how much the United Kingdom worked to free the continent during two major wars. That is a lot of emotional background that only the most current generation doesn't really have.
The real truth is no one knows exactly what is going to happen. Oh sure there are predictions of doom and gloom, but a lot of this is related to big financial players not liking the public to have a voice. Never underestimate the vested interest in those profiting off the current setup.
We must also remember to not lambast the other side, neither side can claim to be a bastion of clear thinking and undisputed intelligence.
It's surprising how far some idealism can get us, though. Let's not forget that it's exactly that older generation that build the EU on the ruins of the wars they fought.
I'm wondering if the EU isn't suffering from its own success. It modeled the free trade/free movement/peaceful cooperation at a time at which none of these things were common. That style of negotiation and cooperation then became common internationally, so that nowadays, it appears to make little difference if, say, Croatia is part of the EU or not.
> I am going to go with the older generations simply remembering how much the United Kingdom worked to free the continent during two major wars. That is a lot of emotional background that only the most current generation doesn't really have.
Anyone old enough to remember the war (at all) would be in their 70s-80s now. It's sad but I think there won't be any WWII veterans left soon.
- The UK contributes, but also receives from the EU. The net is a 7 billion pound a year (136m, not 350m, a week) contribution to the EU.
Blatant lie there.
- Leave camp has consistently said the money will go to the NHS. Hours after the campaign, the most prominent leader of the leave camp has said this was a mistake and is not actually the case. Anyone who isn't naive recognises this is a deliberate lie, if you'd have asked him 24 hours ago he'd have said it goes to the NHS, nothing changed since then accept the fact people can't vote anymore, so it makes no sense to keep lying.
- The aforementioned 7 billion is on an economy of 1.85 trillion pounds, or 0.38% of GDP. Now recognise that 50% of the UK's exports go towards the EU.
The notion that the economic benefit of saving this 0.38% in contributions and losing prime access to the world's biggest market is a good economic deal is silly. The net benefit of contributions and membership is positive, so the UK isn't losing money or sending money because of its membership, let alone anywhere near 350m a week.
In an indirect way that happens in some politics. Parties and political figures need funding, they get that funding from organisations and individuals with deep pockets. Even if politicians argue that their policies aren't influenced by donations, donors aren't going to fund someone who promotes policies which the donors don't agree with. And given how expensive it is to run an election campaign, politicians with unpopular policies a (amongst the wealthy and big businesses) will either risk exposure due to poor funding, thus potentially lose votes, or "soften" their policies to appeal to the deeper pockets. Either scenario results in a subtle bias towards big money.
I wouldn't like to speculate on how significant this bias might be though, nor would I know how to level that particular playing field. Maybe everyone donates into a central pot and campaigners all get an equal share of the pot?
I can see a case in which they have some sort of moral claim to control spending, but that is limited, as one example, by the fact that a government decides a lot more than spending.
It's also a bad idea when you want to make good (as in maximize individual happiness) decisions, since the "10%" who'd end up with 90% of the political power have neither the knowledge nor (in some cases) the interest to help a majority of society.
Even they would actually not have to gain much from controlling spending (except by lowering taxes) as the super-richs' happiness is more or less independent of gov spending: private schools, private jets, private healthcare.
Oh, it's also a completely stupid & undemocratic idea, which led to my glib initial criticism.
Obviously this is not a solution. People will say it's unfair. Others will try to influence the younger voters like never before. etc.
Anyone else have any other intersting ideas for this problem?