CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
10
Yes No
Debate Score:14
Arguments:11
Total Votes:14
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (4)
 
 No (7)

Debate Creator

myclob(437) pic



Should we give different people different voting weights?

We already have this, but it is very crude: we take away 100% of felon's right to vote. Why don't we just take away a percentage, based on the seriousness of the crime? 

Also, 17 year olds can fight in our war, but they can't vote. Why not let them vote at 15, but only count 1/2 their vote?

Computers are very smart. My smart phone has the processing power to run this database, so don't tell me it would be too complicated. Are you telling me the federal government doesn't already have a list of each citizen, and who has commited a crime? This is already merged with our voting paperwork: fellons can not vote. They are bared for life.

Don't throw the idea away. It is very flexable. We could have crimes go away after a period of time and could go off your record.

 

Obviously which ever society implemented this scheme would apply their values/ethics. These would change over time, much like our laws.

In addition to discouraging illegal activities, we should encourage other activities with the "ethics quotient". I know, I know... there is a lot of bad will associated with the word "ethics". Many people who are in the minority scream: "Who's ethics are you going to use?" My answer, is yours. This could be designed how every you want. I'm just floating the idea. 

Perhaps the following "good activities" would result in the following increases in your vote's weight.

EDUCATION High School Degree 5% 4 year degree 10% Masters degree 15% Doctoral Degree 20%. Don't like that? How about TEST SCORES.  ACT Score above 25 5% ACT Score above 30 10% We could also weigh our votes proportionally to our knowledge about the candidates. A test could be given, with the voter's score qualifying them for different weights assigned to their votes. Perhaps 50 questions could be assigned for each candidate. Some questions may do with their backgrounds, and others would represent their stances on different policies.

How about SOCIALLY AWARE PROFESSIONS:  Teachers 5% Police 5%. Don't like that? How about COMMUNITY SERIVE 80 hrs/ year 5% 160 hrs/ year 10%

AGE: Those with more experience should get more of a vote. Perhaps an increase in your voting power by 2% for every decade lived. Children could vote, however their vote would count less, which is better than not at all.

ARGUMENTS:

I see two outcomes: It would reward people for whatever thing each state, or city wants to reward. The next goal, is that it might result in better policy. Even stupid people should get to vote. But think about it... these crazy people that keep showing up on this site, and saying racist things... they get the same vote as you... Their is an old saying in engineering: garbage in, garbage out... In other words, if you don't have good data, you are not going to come to the right conclusion... I don't have a PHD. I don't have a masters. I don't have a high IQ. But I want to live in a country

Yes

Side Score: 4
VS.

No

Side Score: 10
1 point

It's a tough question. Educated people aren't necessarily the most intelligent, insightful or wise, yet they do tend to be "smarter" than less educated people. Also, it has clear advantages over the current system, since at the moment even the best of policies will easily fail due to the short-sightedness and lack of understanding of the general public.

Side: Yes
2 points

I see what point you are trying to make. I am a 17 year old Canadian, I am quite knowledgeable on politics and world issues, I have clearly established views and ideology. I am an intelligent free thinking human being who would like to have a say in the future of his country but my voice is worth nothing compared to my grandfather who can vote as he pleases although he has alzheimers, dementia and can't remember his own name. What kind of a system is this? However the problem with weighing the votes of different people with different characteristics is that it is in favor or a political position on the spectrum depending on how value is determined. After all, value is not intrinsically found in nature, it is something we impose on it to say for example that we value an educated person's opinion more than stupid person's one. It's simple; if you have a country of idiots, you will get politicians who are idiots. But by saying to some people, your vote doesn't matter as much because you don't have traits that are characteristic of my agenda is murder to democracy. Now obviously there is a problem with the current system, that my vote is meaningless until I reach that magic age of 18 where I apparently gain some profound wisdom which enables me to vote, and until I gain that wisdom I am just too retarded to handle a say in my country's future. I don't know what a proper change or solution is but weighing votes is rather un-democratic.

Side: No
myclob(437) Disputed
1 point

Does your assumption presuppose that PURE democracy is, without argument, necessarily the only valid form of government?

The United States and Canada do not have pure democracies. The whole point of representative government, is we are supposed to vote for people that represent the best and brightest of us.

Also, does your conclusion presuppose that Education is worthless? If education helps you come to a better conclusion, shouldn't we value the opinion of more educated people? I am do not have a Master's or a PHD, but I am not too proud to consider a system that gives someone with a Masters degree 10% more of a vote than me. However, if they get a ticked while drunk driving, they may have less of a vote than me... Or if I get my master's 10 years from now, I could pass them.

There is nothing stopping you, as a person, from getting a master's. You can't say this devalues people with a low score... All they have to do is alter their behavior.

Side: Yes people should get different weights
casper3912(1581) Disputed
2 points

Education is not an option for some people, in that its expensive and take time. There are some things stopping some people.

Further more unequal representation isn't democratic, and lacks the functionality more equal representation has.

Equal representation acts to insure the happiness of the majority, and by canceling out opposing drives derives the common principles of a people which allows them to live at peace.

We already have a system which gives more weight to the educated and rich, ie capitalism.

Side: No
Bohemian(3860) Disputed
2 points

The whole reason that everybody gets an equal voice is so that they can look out for their best interest, and that if ever there is legislation that disadvantages them they can always vote against it. Admittedly this premise is ruined by the ability to "buy" support and thus achieve a greater say, thus why society socially and legally favors the wealthy.

Side: No
1 point

I guess I might support this under certain circumstances, but the logistics are a serious problem. Hell, they can't even count whole votes. I can't even imagine them trying to count half votes and whole votes. Who knows though, it could work someday,

Side: No
1 point

Interesting... I understand your point and I agree to an extent however it would be complicated and I can already hear the cries of people claiming they were being considered as less than a human.

Side: No
myclob(437) Disputed
1 point

Yes, but we already do it. We take away 100% of a 17 year old person's ability to vote. All I am saying is when they are 17, we give them 1/2 a vote. 1/2 is bigger than 0. So at least they are 1/2 a person, right? That is better than 0% of a person!

The thing with felons. We don't have to take away all of their right to vote. If you go into someone's house, surely you shouldn't have the same percentage of your vote taken away as someone who kills or rapes someone... right?

Side: yes
1 point

I came across this very conclusion, that we should give democratic decision making more weight based on educational level, in my late teens around the start of college. It just made intuitive sense that "more education" was directly correlated with "being smart" and "knowing what's best in general." Mark my words, this is an assumption, not a fact. Through the K-12 educational system, we are basically brain washed into assuming this direct, linear correlation as it followed directly from the way we are graded, rewarded, praised or criticized among peers, teachers and parents. Well, this turned out to be utterly false. It may hold some truth when speaking within specific professions, vocations or ambitions, but as a general claim across all people it is naive and misleading. This impression leads me to my argument, though it is not central to my argument.

My main argument against weighting votes based on educational attainment is that it is baldly elitist and imposes a strong assumption about some inherent elevated insight that necessarily comes with more and more letters after one's name. (I find that claim preposterous, baldly elitist and most likely self-serving, but I'll put that aside.) One might know a little more about something specific, but it is a stretch to claim this confers the right to impose their opinions on others "less educated on paper".

Our democracy is modeled on the premise put forth as self-evident that "All men are created equal." I believe this implies that no individual vote can out weigh another. All men are created equal, it is one man per vote, and therefore all votes must be weighted equally.

To buy the premise that higher educational attainment should confer the ability to presume what is best and right for society over the opinion of someone less educated is to buy into a kind of elitist, paternalistic and classist aristocracy. A modern caste system stratifying people into different levels of value and entitlement, precisely the evil that our democracy was crafted to end.

Side: No