3 ms·

I'd be interested in a system where you can gain additional voting power based on $stake. Everyone gets a vote, but based on $criteria, you gain additional vote

I'd be interested in a system where you can gain additional voting power based on $stake. Everyone gets a vote, but based on $criteria, you gain additional votes. Youth and parents get an extra vote on school stuff. Those whose education or career are related to a field get an extra vote. In some cases, you may hold 5x the voting power of someone who is removed and unfamiliar with a topic. No idea if anything like that has been explored.

_heimdall 1y ago
I'd hate to see that system implemented. The point of every person getting one vote is to even the playing field. Everyone living under that authority's rule should have an equal say in who runs that authority. Allowing people to have more or less say based on stake would lead to a spiral. Those in charge take care of the people they care about, those people would continue to elect the same politicians, and everyone else would be left aside while power (and stake) consolidates.
- sethammons 1y ago
  Graduated income taxes level the playing field; wouldn't a graduated voting system level the playing field? Why should someone who knows nothing of field have a say in laws that over represents their knowledge and stake? I don't think my vote for what you feed your kids should count the same as your vote on what you feed your kids. The worry about votes and power collecting is sane. It happens already through propaganda and ill informed (usually due to low perceived stakes) voters. We need a system that counters the negative effects if low informed masses.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    > Graduated income taxes level the playing field Well we definitely disagree there, but that's probably a deeper rabbit hole than is worth diving down here. > Why should someone who knows nothing of field have a say in laws that over represents their knowledge and stake? I don't think voting rights should be gated on education, experience, or opinions. I already hesitate with age, but saying a child shouldn't vote feels much less offensive than saying a person with money or education should get more votes. > I don't think my vote for what you feed your kids should count the same as your vote on what you feed your kids. I don't think either of us should have any say in what the other feeds their kids, the law should definitely not have a say in that either. > We need a system that counters the negative effects if low informed masses. I think we pretty well agree here, except for maybe the angle of a solution. I'm of the opinion that we can't force people to be better educated, nor should we prevent them from voting. In my opinion the government should only have as much authority as we are willing to hand over to an official elected by today's voting population. If we fear the mob or the uneducated voter than the issue is with how much power our government has rather than who does the voting.

_heimdall 1y ago

I'd hate to see that system implemented. The point of every person getting one vote is to even the playing field. Everyone living under that authority's rule should have an equal say in who runs that authority. Allowing people to have more or less say based on stake would lead to a spiral. Those in charge take care of the people they care about, those people would continue to elect the same politicians, and everyone else would be left aside while power (and stake) consolidates.

sethammons 1y ago
Graduated income taxes level the playing field; wouldn't a graduated voting system level the playing field? Why should someone who knows nothing of field have a say in laws that over represents their knowledge and stake? I don't think my vote for what you feed your kids should count the same as your vote on what you feed your kids. The worry about votes and power collecting is sane. It happens already through propaganda and ill informed (usually due to low perceived stakes) voters. We need a system that counters the negative effects if low informed masses.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  > Graduated income taxes level the playing field Well we definitely disagree there, but that's probably a deeper rabbit hole than is worth diving down here. > Why should someone who knows nothing of field have a say in laws that over represents their knowledge and stake? I don't think voting rights should be gated on education, experience, or opinions. I already hesitate with age, but saying a child shouldn't vote feels much less offensive than saying a person with money or education should get more votes. > I don't think my vote for what you feed your kids should count the same as your vote on what you feed your kids. I don't think either of us should have any say in what the other feeds their kids, the law should definitely not have a say in that either. > We need a system that counters the negative effects if low informed masses. I think we pretty well agree here, except for maybe the angle of a solution. I'm of the opinion that we can't force people to be better educated, nor should we prevent them from voting. In my opinion the government should only have as much authority as we are willing to hand over to an official elected by today's voting population. If we fear the mob or the uneducated voter than the issue is with how much power our government has rather than who does the voting.