It is a tough job to run a country

 

Since the times when Plato wrote The Republic, (I pause to congratulate myself because I think I successfully added a link to the post), the discipline of Political Science has evolved.

There are numerous theories assessing the strength of various forms of Government.  Without much agreement not only in which is the best form of Government, but also what criteria should be used to define the success of a form of Government.  For example, any country ruled under strict religious guidelines presumably would aspire to achieve a high degree of “piousness” in its population.  Bhutan notoriously pursues the maximisation of its Gross National Happiness.

However, in the Western world at least, most would agree that Democracy is the best form of government or the best way to select a Government.

I do not.

Democracy, the “rule of the people”, the sacred principle of one vote per person, everyone equal etc etc.  I have problems both with the concept as well as with its application.  First, democracy varies a lot in application and diffusion.  Direct democracy vs indirect.  Universal suffrage vs limited.  There is not a single country I can think of where the principle of one vote per person is actually fully adopted.  In ancient Athens, even the demos was actually a very restricted group of full citizens within a broader society with fewer rights (eg women).  No country allows 12 years old to vote (and I would dispute their vote would likely be wiser than that of the mature man who votes for the Shooters and Hunters Party).  Even in Switzerland, with the most advanced form of direct democracy through referenda, one wonders if the relative good governance that the country enjoys is more due to a form of plutocracy instead.  Singapore – in a simplified form an economic dictatorship – also works well, yet some of its residents complain about the lack of freedom.  And there are plenty of example in majority opinions being disastrous.  Total idiots elected democratically.  I do not even bother quoting examples, it is just too obvious that the majority opinion is not always the Best opinion.

Even old Plato proclaimed the merits of the Illuminated Dictator over democracy.

So what do I propose (by the way, I am at least half way serious about this): I propose the adoption of a Weighted Average Democracy.

Let me start by explaining what it is.  I like the principle that all of us citizens of a country can have our say in electing our leaders.  However, as noted above, this often yield sub-optimal results.  I think the main reason is that idiots are also allowed to vote.  But I just stated above it is good that even idiots have the right to vote.  The way to resolve this trade-off, and the core of the problem with democracy, is that every vote counts the same.

This should not be the case.  I am a strong believer in meritocracy (provided we all have access to a similar starting point), and I might write more about this in another blog.  But with a bias towards meritocracy, the current voting rights are not satisfactory.

Really, why should a violent drunk bogan wife beater’s vote count the same of a potential prize winner and humanitarian?  The vote of the people who contribute more or are smarter should count more than the vote of those who are ill-informed in their choices.

In my system, each voter would be given a weighting, say from 1 to 5.

We might start with an average of three points and go up and down.

Are you part of a socially contributing profession (such as teacher or nurse)?: + 1

Have you been convicted of a criminal offense?: -1

Do you have a graduate degree?: + 1

These criteria (and that is where the practical application of my idea becomes difficult) are set by a group of wise people, who also provide for the rules so that a person does not have to be stuck in a particular category of vote forever.  The problem, I am aware, is how to select this group of wise people in the first place.  I am not sure and keen to hear ideas, I probably would ask a group of judges from supreme court up to nominate the panel.

However, I am convinced that once good criteria are identified and applied, and once voters are given a different weighting in their vote, we would end up giving more voting power to better people, and less voting power to worse people. The result, in my view, will be a smarter, more thought through, more effective and balanced choice of leaders; and – ultimately – better governance.