4 ms·
It's the same in every country: Some historical group's advantage can't be removed because they are enough people to get leverage against any opponent. There's
by tajen 10y ago
It's the same in every country: Some historical group's advantage can't be removed because they are enough people to get leverage against any opponent. There's a need for a new advance in democracy, because it has almost-bankrupted a few countries now (including Greece). Perhaps the separation of powers in our democracies (executive, judicial and law-makers) isn't enough. Maybe we should add a 4th weight, which translates hard limits from nature into limits that politics can't cross: "You can't allow a global warming", "You can't increase debt beyond 4%", "You can't let people work dramatically less for 5 decades (like in Greece), unless you justify it with an incredible progress in NGP/GDP/technology" or "You can't have discrepancies between public and private sectors". Somehow I'm happy Europe provides a bit of pushback against my country (France) because God knows how much debt our politics would otherwise subscribe.
- twic 10y agoHow about we weight people's vote by an estimate of how long they've got left to live? After all, the longer into the future you'll live, the more seriously you have to take it.
- hkhall 10y agoI see several thoughts about that interesting proposal(offhand and only related to USA): 1) Those that have participated in government/military have less say than when they served. This could be a positive, but I feel some objection to a POW (my grandfather for instance) having less say than someone who didn't serve. 2) Do _really_ we want the least experienced citizens having the most say? The US already has age limits for certain offices so that sort of reduces my concerns about this, but... 3) Phase in plan? Currently voting is dominated by older voters. I don't see those people rushing to their polling places to vote to have the value of their vote lessened. Could be interesting to see the reasoning that happens for people to vote for or against it from a game theory perspective. Still, I am interested.
- mercer 10y ago> 2) Do _really_ we want the least experienced citizens having the most say? That's the first thing that I thought of, but then I realized that I have a pretty dim view of the 'experience' of most older people that I know. They are woefully unable to use computers, and on account of their 'trust' in things like fake news they seem incredibly unprepared to deal with our current reality and are just as susceptible - if not moreso - to populism. And while this is a bold claim I'm not quite prepared to defend, they seem quite a bit more selfish and materialistic than the twenty-somethings I spend much of my time with. Maybe in times of rapid change like ours, 'experience' doesn't mean as much as it once did. Plus, it goes both ways. If we should defer to those with more experience, it's only fair that they should take better care of their offspring.
- nugget 10y agoLet people vote with their feet. Avoid bailouts when pain arises from obvious mistakes, corruption and self-dealing. The rest will sort itself out.