3 ms·

In an interview from Lee Kwan Yew, he suggests that it would be better for democracy if people with children between the ages of 35 and 60 had two votes. One of

by crassus 13y ago

In an interview from Lee Kwan Yew, he suggests that it would be better for democracy if people with children between the ages of 35 and 60 had two votes. One of the common criticisms of democracy is that it promotes short-term thinking because pandering to the people is always popular. Giving extra political power to the portion of the population with the incentive to think long-term might counteract that. It seemed like this model was a hypothetical, and not something he thought politically possible. But he is very skeptical of the one-person one-vote model, which to be fair has crashed and burned in many places it has been tried outside of its region of origin. Yew thinks China converting to a Democracy would set back its economic development by a hundred years.

IgorPartola 13y ago
Why that specific group? Why not the wealthy? Or the poor? Or women? Or landowners? This sounds like a terrible idea, along the lines of the government subsidizing home ownership the way it does in the US. The only version of this that I've seen that I actually liked was the idea that to declare war a referendum was necessary (can easily and quickly be orchestrated nowadays) and that the people that vote Yes are the first to be drafted. Naturally, only the people eligible to vote are the ones eligible to serve. I think almost everyone can agree that war is bad, while I doubt that we can all agree that choosing to be between 35 and 60 and have kids is the most ideal state of being for the country/economy/the world.
- mseebach 13y ago
  The problem with the concept is not that it's inherently a bad idea to temper democracy, it's that it will become just another way of gerrymandering: Make it easier/harder to people you agree/disagree with to vote their mind to stack to deck in favour of a given outcome.
  - IgorPartola 13y ago
    The two are one and the same. Every time you introduce a crude new exception to the rule, you create an imbalance and complexity. Simple is better than complex. Organic is better than artificial. Otherwise emergent behavior is always a way to hack the system (e.g.: gerrymander). The beauty of one vote per person is that it's simple. Now, in the US, things get complex when we start talking about swing states, the fact that 3/4 of voters don't give a crap, etc. You can easily have a system where a few thousand Ohio residents decide who becomes president. However, the more complexity you introduce the more loopholes you will create.
- rprospero 13y ago
  The reason why that specific group was chosen is that they represent non-voting citizens. There are 73 million Americans too young to vote. They are subject to laws and pay sales taxes, but have no representation in the government. The proposal isn't a "reward" for being a good breeder, but an attempt at rectifying that almost a quarter of the population has no electoral power. I believe that the age range was mostly chosen to ensure that these are parents of children who are not of voting age, but I think it would be easier to allocate one vote to each social security number and let parents proxy vote for their children. Honestly, I'm not sure that this is a good idea, I'm not sure that it's any worse than just denying representation to a segment of the population. My other concern is your policy on referendum for war. I'm opposed to war and would vote no on pretty much any referendum. However, I also have cerebral palsy and am completely ineligible to serve. Do I not deserve a say in our foreign policy? Also, the US has gone through its past few wars without instituting a draft. My more bellicose relations would be able to vote for this war without any serious fear of being drafted.
  - IgorPartola 13y ago
    I think the much bigger problem than the minors not being able to vote would be the problem of apathy. 3/4 of American voters don't vote for whatever reason. Of the 1/4 that do, most don't know foreign policy from a strongly worded statement about Christian values. The reality is that voters are much easier to influence than they imagine and elections are not won on the fundamentals of the party but on the way that the team spins the personality of the candidate. Now, as for the referendum thing... It's not my idea, I'm paraphrasing an idea that is twice as old as I am. I think it can be tuned and refined. The idea behind it is that war should be declared only when a majority of the country's draft-age people are willing to lay down their lives for the cause. What we have now is that a few hundred people get to decide to send a small minority that is the military into harm's way based on any reason they want. Making people more directly responsible for declaring war is a good idea. You are right in that we have not had draft for the past few conflicts. Also remember that the United States has not declared war since WWII [1]. The rest of these conflicts were not wars but "military engagements". And the military probably does not want to get an influx of draftees who have no idea what they are doing either. They are going to be much more likely to die in the conflict due to lack of training, etc. All that aside, I think the idea here is more valuable than implementation. The idea that if you decide to do something so major as to declare war on a foreign country, you should feel the consequences more immediately. Perhaps if you vote yes, and the majority wins, then your taxes are raised to pay for this war. Or maybe if you vote to raise taxes, then your are raised by double of what you voted for one year (not for/against raising taxes, just using it as an example of a major change). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unite...
optimiz3 13y ago
Yes - and surely that demographic will be much more pliable when it comes time to "think of the children".
kansface 13y ago
Those people already get to vote... (the children that is, when their parents are 60).

by crassus 13y ago

IgorPartola 13y ago

Why that specific group? Why not the wealthy? Or the poor? Or women? Or landowners? This sounds like a terrible idea, along the lines of the government subsidizing home ownership the way it does in the US. The only version of this that I've seen that I actually liked was the idea that to declare war a referendum was necessary (can easily and quickly be orchestrated nowadays) and that the people that vote Yes are the first to be drafted. Naturally, only the people eligible to vote are the ones eligible to serve. I think almost everyone can agree that war is bad, while I doubt that we can all agree that choosing to be between 35 and 60 and have kids is the most ideal state of being for the country/economy/the world.

mseebach 13y ago
The problem with the concept is not that it's inherently a bad idea to temper democracy, it's that it will become just another way of gerrymandering: Make it easier/harder to people you agree/disagree with to vote their mind to stack to deck in favour of a given outcome.
- IgorPartola 13y ago
  The two are one and the same. Every time you introduce a crude new exception to the rule, you create an imbalance and complexity. Simple is better than complex. Organic is better than artificial. Otherwise emergent behavior is always a way to hack the system (e.g.: gerrymander). The beauty of one vote per person is that it's simple. Now, in the US, things get complex when we start talking about swing states, the fact that 3/4 of voters don't give a crap, etc. You can easily have a system where a few thousand Ohio residents decide who becomes president. However, the more complexity you introduce the more loopholes you will create.
rprospero 13y ago
The reason why that specific group was chosen is that they represent non-voting citizens. There are 73 million Americans too young to vote. They are subject to laws and pay sales taxes, but have no representation in the government. The proposal isn't a "reward" for being a good breeder, but an attempt at rectifying that almost a quarter of the population has no electoral power. I believe that the age range was mostly chosen to ensure that these are parents of children who are not of voting age, but I think it would be easier to allocate one vote to each social security number and let parents proxy vote for their children. Honestly, I'm not sure that this is a good idea, I'm not sure that it's any worse than just denying representation to a segment of the population. My other concern is your policy on referendum for war. I'm opposed to war and would vote no on pretty much any referendum. However, I also have cerebral palsy and am completely ineligible to serve. Do I not deserve a say in our foreign policy? Also, the US has gone through its past few wars without instituting a draft. My more bellicose relations would be able to vote for this war without any serious fear of being drafted.
- IgorPartola 13y ago
  I think the much bigger problem than the minors not being able to vote would be the problem of apathy. 3/4 of American voters don't vote for whatever reason. Of the 1/4 that do, most don't know foreign policy from a strongly worded statement about Christian values. The reality is that voters are much easier to influence than they imagine and elections are not won on the fundamentals of the party but on the way that the team spins the personality of the candidate. Now, as for the referendum thing... It's not my idea, I'm paraphrasing an idea that is twice as old as I am. I think it can be tuned and refined. The idea behind it is that war should be declared only when a majority of the country's draft-age people are willing to lay down their lives for the cause. What we have now is that a few hundred people get to decide to send a small minority that is the military into harm's way based on any reason they want. Making people more directly responsible for declaring war is a good idea. You are right in that we have not had draft for the past few conflicts. Also remember that the United States has not declared war since WWII [1]. The rest of these conflicts were not wars but "military engagements". And the military probably does not want to get an influx of draftees who have no idea what they are doing either. They are going to be much more likely to die in the conflict due to lack of training, etc. All that aside, I think the idea here is more valuable than implementation. The idea that if you decide to do something so major as to declare war on a foreign country, you should feel the consequences more immediately. Perhaps if you vote yes, and the majority wins, then your taxes are raised to pay for this war. Or maybe if you vote to raise taxes, then your are raised by double of what you voted for one year (not for/against raising taxes, just using it as an example of a major change). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unite...

optimiz3 13y ago

Yes - and surely that demographic will be much more pliable when it comes time to "think of the children".

kansface 13y ago

Those people already get to vote... (the children that is, when their parents are 60).