3 ms·

Yeah, but we can’t even figure out how to have reliable elections without using paper ballots. I don’t think we are mature enough to have an unbiased merit-base

• Zenst 7y ago
  Oh, I totally agree. I was just showing how things can have many labels and with that, effect how the content is interpreted with focus upon the label over the content. In some ways we have a level of meritocracy in that we set a minimum level of IQ and ethical standard to be allowed to vote, prisoners don't vote (most countries I'm aware of at least, though I'm sure as with everything that exceptions exist). Just that some want to raise and add to those merits. Which would be sad and equally could be labeled a form of dictatorship and highlights again, how something is labeled, defines the direction of debate. For me, a more engaged and granualar system of say is what is needed. Today we have a token X upon a limited selection, with no garantee's that those options can or will do what they said at the time you placed your token X, once every 4-5 years. Voting is stuck in the medieval times, when it could take months to a bit of paper across the country and people could just about manage an X as their writing skills. Politics needs to evolve. But if I was to change one single thing, it would be to remove the party system myself. All representatives would be standing to represent who elected them and speak for them over party loyalty. That would see a fairer and more insightful democracy play out. But that would be a start. A more granular say is needed in our voting systems and that say needs to be more frequent.