So I am frequently in the camp of people who think that not everyone should get to vote. Proof that this is so can be summed up in two words: Boaty McBoatface. And I do believe that there is a way to divide the populace into piles of "the worthy and the unworthy" as you call them. Public service. If you have done public service, something that benefits those around you rather than just yourself, you should have the right to vote. Teachers, firefighters, military, USAID, mailmen, doctors, etc. Bankers and artists and restaurateurs will not make the cut. Neither would I by the way. I'm damning myself here. HOWEVER. I ultimately come down on this being a bad idea for one reason. Stability. Giving everyone a right to votes gives them agency within the system. The US is a pretty stable democracy despite our myriad of differences and allowing people to feel like the system is something that they are a part of makes them less likely to want to tear it down. Millions of people who believe that the system can ignore them without consequence are millions of people who might prefer the next Franco or Tito or Pinochet merely because, hey he might throw them a wink of recognition. Democratic self interest even though it comes at the expense of having some total dipshits get to drop their marble in the urn.
Have you ever heard of Jason Brennan? He talks about this a lot. Economist.
I believe the UK at some point in the past actually had a weighted vote system. Basically business owners counted as a few bites each. If you were someone of note.
Obviously this isn’t the best way to go. But with ai there’s a lot of interesting ways we can actually weigh votes. For instance a few question test could be administered. Everyone still gets to vote. But based on your answers to this test your vote will be weighted as “informed” and “uninformed” and your vote would be weighed based on that.
That’s also has some weird complications.
It is weird though how democracy has become kind of enshrined. Democracy won out over other governments not because it was the best but because it was the least worst.
It doesn’t mean we can’t tinker with it.
But I agree it is legitimately unfair that if you have a 3rd grade education that your vote holds the same weight as a PhD lawyer.
Yo! Lay off Lou Brown on the repetition in the last verse. It's called a tag. It's in thousands of songs. Sometimes written, sometimes not.
So I am frequently in the camp of people who think that not everyone should get to vote. Proof that this is so can be summed up in two words: Boaty McBoatface. And I do believe that there is a way to divide the populace into piles of "the worthy and the unworthy" as you call them. Public service. If you have done public service, something that benefits those around you rather than just yourself, you should have the right to vote. Teachers, firefighters, military, USAID, mailmen, doctors, etc. Bankers and artists and restaurateurs will not make the cut. Neither would I by the way. I'm damning myself here. HOWEVER. I ultimately come down on this being a bad idea for one reason. Stability. Giving everyone a right to votes gives them agency within the system. The US is a pretty stable democracy despite our myriad of differences and allowing people to feel like the system is something that they are a part of makes them less likely to want to tear it down. Millions of people who believe that the system can ignore them without consequence are millions of people who might prefer the next Franco or Tito or Pinochet merely because, hey he might throw them a wink of recognition. Democratic self interest even though it comes at the expense of having some total dipshits get to drop their marble in the urn.
Have you ever heard of Jason Brennan? He talks about this a lot. Economist.
I believe the UK at some point in the past actually had a weighted vote system. Basically business owners counted as a few bites each. If you were someone of note.
Obviously this isn’t the best way to go. But with ai there’s a lot of interesting ways we can actually weigh votes. For instance a few question test could be administered. Everyone still gets to vote. But based on your answers to this test your vote will be weighted as “informed” and “uninformed” and your vote would be weighed based on that.
That’s also has some weird complications.
It is weird though how democracy has become kind of enshrined. Democracy won out over other governments not because it was the best but because it was the least worst.
It doesn’t mean we can’t tinker with it.
But I agree it is legitimately unfair that if you have a 3rd grade education that your vote holds the same weight as a PhD lawyer.
I say we shouldn't allow Matt Walsh to vote. Just applying his own flawless reasoning.
BTW, Jeff, your Reddit line about 9/11 made me laugh out loud.