3 ms·
Conditional on the premise that the majority should govern in the first place, I think this sounds like a reasonably attractive system. Not necessarily the cas
by femto 14y ago
Conditional on the premise that the majority should govern in the first place, I think this sounds like a reasonably attractive system.
Not necessarily the case. The problem even has a name: "Tyranny of the majority" [1].
I'd argue that decisions in government should be made by a majority vote, with each person's vote being weighted by the impact the decision will have on them. Currently, we have the idea that everyone should have an equal vote. Yes, determining the weightings verges on the impossible, but is there someway the Internet might make it possible?
Note that such a scheme would make the concept of "nation" and other levels of government irrelevant. Local decisions would automatically be make by a local cluster of people, whilst decisions with a global impact would be determined by a larger group.
- yummyfajitas 14y agoI'd argue that decisions in government should be made by a majority vote, with each person's vote being weighted by the impact the decision will have on them. Proposal: the government should take $1 from every person and give to me. Determining the weightings is straightforward: I get 300 million votes, each individual besides me gets 1 vote (since the impact on me is 300 million x greater than the impact on them). An exaggerated example to be sure, but your proposal will drastically increase the power of special interests.
- femto 14y agoYep. Chances are my proposal would just shift the bun fight from deciding the decision to deciding the weightings. I'd contend that the weightings shouldn't be based on $, but I'm sure those with lots of $ would disagree. I'm just fantasisng that the net might be able to produce some measure of the impact of decisions, similar to the way that social graphs can be traced and relationships/influence calculated.