- Joined
- Oct 18, 2011
- Messages
- 6,769
- Reaction score
- 1,936
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
So .. my girlfriend and I were talking the other day, and the conversation meandered to American democracy, the problems associated with it, that these unresolved problems could really damage America and have already begun to do so, and how these problems might be solved.
Rather than make this an analytical post about the problems (I'm sure we all know what these problems might be) I'm gonna skip ahead to the proposed solution bantered about: some people should have more votes than others.
To expand on this a bit ..
.. A criteria would be developed to determine a vote-number factor for each person.
Thus, for instance, a war vet, decorated above average, who went on to develop a new economic model benefiting all, management, workers, and consumers, and who had reached his 70th birthday ... he might be awarded a vote-number factor of 20 for all he's done and his age ..
.. And a young person in her early 20s who dropped out of high school and had a child out of wedlock and is on the government dole ... she might be awarded a vote-number factor of 2, 1 more than minimum just for raising a child but less than she would have received if she had been married and not on the public dole.
Of course, these are just off-the-top examples .. a lot more care would need to be put into determining the vote-number factor criteria, documented clearly in legal statutes so that all would know ahead of time.
So in a Presidential election, the former, his vote would be treated as 20 votes for his candidate, and the latter, her vote would be treated as two votes for her candidate.
This would reward ethical moral candidates who would do good for the country and the vast majority, and discourage special interest and "bread and circuses" coalition pandering as well as perhaps neutralize the unjustified advantage big cities have over the vast countryside ... .
It would support and encourage the development of good deed doers and reward morals and ethics as well as wisdom and experience, something sorely missing in today's America.
Sure, it would take a bit of smarts to come up with a good factor-assigning criteria, as accomplishments in all realms would need to be recognized, even those achieving in the fine and performing arts, along with charitable donations and the like they contribute .. as would those guardians of family, neighborhoods, and society who toil steadfast in anonymity raising kids and keeping neighborhoods safe and those young people working hard in high school and college to become good members of society, along with those who overcame poverty, etc.
Of course, if someone does something "negative" -- like get caught philandering or cheating on a college test or dealing/abusing drugs or the like -- it'll reduce their vote-number factor .. but never below a value of one (except for a felony conviction and similar).
It would be a task for sure to create and track .. but, think about it for a bit -- wouldn't it be well worth it?
Rather than make this an analytical post about the problems (I'm sure we all know what these problems might be) I'm gonna skip ahead to the proposed solution bantered about: some people should have more votes than others.
To expand on this a bit ..
.. A criteria would be developed to determine a vote-number factor for each person.
Thus, for instance, a war vet, decorated above average, who went on to develop a new economic model benefiting all, management, workers, and consumers, and who had reached his 70th birthday ... he might be awarded a vote-number factor of 20 for all he's done and his age ..
.. And a young person in her early 20s who dropped out of high school and had a child out of wedlock and is on the government dole ... she might be awarded a vote-number factor of 2, 1 more than minimum just for raising a child but less than she would have received if she had been married and not on the public dole.
Of course, these are just off-the-top examples .. a lot more care would need to be put into determining the vote-number factor criteria, documented clearly in legal statutes so that all would know ahead of time.
So in a Presidential election, the former, his vote would be treated as 20 votes for his candidate, and the latter, her vote would be treated as two votes for her candidate.
This would reward ethical moral candidates who would do good for the country and the vast majority, and discourage special interest and "bread and circuses" coalition pandering as well as perhaps neutralize the unjustified advantage big cities have over the vast countryside ... .
It would support and encourage the development of good deed doers and reward morals and ethics as well as wisdom and experience, something sorely missing in today's America.
Sure, it would take a bit of smarts to come up with a good factor-assigning criteria, as accomplishments in all realms would need to be recognized, even those achieving in the fine and performing arts, along with charitable donations and the like they contribute .. as would those guardians of family, neighborhoods, and society who toil steadfast in anonymity raising kids and keeping neighborhoods safe and those young people working hard in high school and college to become good members of society, along with those who overcame poverty, etc.
Of course, if someone does something "negative" -- like get caught philandering or cheating on a college test or dealing/abusing drugs or the like -- it'll reduce their vote-number factor .. but never below a value of one (except for a felony conviction and similar).
It would be a task for sure to create and track .. but, think about it for a bit -- wouldn't it be well worth it?