Subscribe
Democracy of the future – nothing less

Democracy of the future – nothing less

The introduction of weighted votes is a simple yet powerful idea that may help to lift the blanket of apathy that is currently smothering many democratic nations. Once this happens, conditions will be in place for good – rather than popular – political decisions to take root.

By Stefan Hansen

“Were there a people of gods, their government would be democratic. So perfect a government is not for men.”

– J. J. Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book III

Democracy, which was originally dreamed up somewhere in Athens, is a beautiful idea. There is good reason why it has survived for more than two and a half millennia. During most of this period, however, there have been problems with the actual implementation of the democratic idea. However, thanks to new technology, conditions are now in place to bring this implementation one step closer to the ideal through a mechanism I like to call “weighted democracy”. It is a simple idea which, in principle, involves only a minor adjustment in relation to the current practice. In other words, I am not talking about turning out the guard, nor proposing revolution. My suggestion is more modest: let us work together to take democracy to the next logical level, in an evolutionary manner.

The two cornerstones of democracy

Democracy has – or should have – two cornerstones in the form of something that the individual citizen provides, and something that the citizen receives in return. What the citizen gives is not his/her vote, but his/her involvement in society and the political debate. In return for this commitment, the citizen receives the right to vote. It would make sense, and it would be magnificent, if this was the way things worked. Unfortunately, it rarely does, no matter what we might think. The myth of the rational voter is alive and well, even though the rational voter accounts for perhaps only a tiny proportion of the population.

It is only human for us to have forgotten that we have to give something to earn the right to receive. But human or not, it is not particularly fortunate. Our “forgetfulness” has quite simply amputated the democratic idea and left us with a form of implementation which, in the long term, could just as well lead us to the brink of disaster as to enlightenment. To carry on doing what we are doing – i.e. insisting on our right to vote without committing to the political debate – is like sticking our hands in our pockets and turning away with a cheeky “no, I don’t want to” when our grandmother is giving us a stern talking to on the theme of “you have to make an effort if you want something in return”.

Weighted democracy will make gran’s good advice relevant once more and – with a bit of luck – encourage more people to take their hands out of their pockets. And as I mentioned above, the idea is quite simple. The way things are now, everyone over the age of majority is entitled to vote, irrespective of how much, or how little, they understand about politics. And no matter how much we would love to believe in the idea that everyone is equal, and that everyone understands politics, these assumptions are quite simply wrong. Some people read, think and write about politics all day long, others are – for one reason or another – politically ignorant and/or illiterate. Some people have actively chosen to be in this state, and some even take pride in knowing as little as possible about what is happening in the political arena. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, but do not let these people vote. Or more specifically, let them vote but do not count their votes. Does this seem unreasonable? Well it isn’t; and now, fortunately, there is a way to apply it in practice.

Implementation

Before long, we will be using electronic voting cards and making our choice via options on a touchscreen. While we do so, it would be appropriate to have us answer a number of political questions – objective, factual questions rather than questions concerning beliefs and convictions. Once we have answered these questions, our votes will be weighted in relation to the number of correct answers we gave. If we answer all the questions correctly, our vote will count for one whole vote, as it does today. If, however, we answer correctly to only three out of ten questions, our vote will be worth three-tenths of a whole vote. In this way, votes from citizens who have kept up with the political debate will be weighted more heavily than votes from citizens who – for one reason or another – gave incorrect answers to the majority of the questions. This will help create a balance between what we have given and what we receive. As such, we will have come a step closer to ideal democracy – thanks to a relatively simple solution.

Out with the age of majority – in with voting competence

To those people who object that it is wrong in principle to attach more importance to some votes than to others, I can only say that we already do so! All citizens under the legal age of majority are given no voice whatsoever. There is a good and obvious reason for this: we do not want people with no idea of what politics entails to have any influence on political elections. Applying a minimum age to voting rights is a – partially successful – attempt to filter the ignorant and incompetent out of the voting process. Of course, the problem with this solution is that it also filters out well-informed and highly committed people. What is even worse is that it allows adults with no interest at all in politics to vote, and then it attaches the same weight to their votes as to those of everyone else.

By introducing weighted democracy, we have the opportunity to lower or even eliminate the age of majority, and allow everyone, including teenagers, to vote. Those teenagers who keep up with the political debate and can therefore answer all – or most of – the “election questions” will have their votes weighted highly, whereas those teenagers who would rather play football and pursue members of the opposite sex would be unlikely to answer many of the questions correctly. The same applies to the politically committed adults and the adult skirt-chasers. What is really beautiful about this idea is that everything is up to the individual, and there is no coercion at all. Commitment is a free choice, just as it is today. The only difference is that commitment is rewarded with political influence.

Objections

It is, of course, important to have clear guidelines about what kind of questions voters are to be asked. The whole idea will crumble if there are no specific and unambiguous answers. Questions about beliefs and convictions, on which even the politicians themselves cannot agree, must be banned. All questions must be factual. It should be possible to have a “pool” of hundreds of relevant questions, and then to present each voter with a random selection so as to eliminate the risk of voters passing on the answers to others.

One objection to this idea is that it might be possible to write the election questions in such a way as to make them easier for certain voters – conservatives or socialists, for example – to answer. I must say I doubt whether it is possible to write questions that appeal to a specific political group of voters, but there is a very simple solution to this potential problem. Let the parties themselves write the questions. If they do so, and if it is possible to write questions that are easier for their followers to answer, then the conditions will be equal for everyone and any bias will cancel itself out.

Another objection is that some questions can be harder to answer than others, and that an occasional ambiguous question might appear. I will not deny that both these objections are justified, but it does not alter the fact that implementing weighted democracy would raise the democratic process to a higher level than its current state. The fact that a couple of dubious questions might sneak through the filter does not mean that the whole idea is worthless. It simply means that the idea is not perfect – but then again, no-one in their right mind would claim that the present system is perfect, either. Even though the new idea may not be the holy grail of democracy, it is certainly a pragmatic model and one that is much better than the current one. And that is what matters.

When we say no to democracy

Imagine that you have begun to experience some strange symptoms every morning. You feel ill, dizzy and so on, and the condition is not going away. So what do you do? You call your doctor. You call the expert. Have you ever considered describing your symptoms to your friends instead, and then letting them vote on what medicine you should pour down your throat? I doubt it. Fortunately. Fortunately, you know that democracy is not applicable in this situation. The same applies when your car will not start on a cold winter morning, no matter what you do. So again, you call your mechanic, the expert. You choose the dictator of the internal combustion engine rather than the democratic will of your friends. This is a good thing, because in some cases the democratic process is simply not appropriate. In many cases, it is better to consult with a single expert than with a thousand laymen. Don’t you think the same might apply to running a country? Would it not be better for everyone to place political responsibility in the hands of politically committed and motivated people? It seems to be an advantageous approach, and this is precisely what weighted democracy would offer to a much greater extent than current democracy. This method sorts the sheep from the goats – and grades the goats on a scale of 0 to 1.

About

Stefan Hansen is a self-taught thinker. At present, he is devoting his attention to possible solutions to the societal problems of the future, with a view to writing a collection of essays about the issue. One of the cornerstones of this collection is the idea of the weighted democracy of the future.

5 Comments to Democracy of the future – nothing less

  1. 2011 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    “It is, of course, important to have clear guidelines about what kind of questions voters are to be asked. The whole idea will crumble if there are no specific and unambiguous answers.”

    This! That is why this idea will fail miserably. Because the problem u present in those two lines is a practical impossibility.

    Democracy by exclusion does not only fail hard on its moral merit alone, but like so many other similar ideas they are structured around a Utopian view on one of is mechanics.
    Creating the ten questions will be a job nobody can do, noone will vote for and impossible to agree on.

    What is enough knowledge, what fields weighs more then others, what about the flaws, what about the ppl selecting the questions, who will be excluded more then others, whatabout the websites that will post these questions on their pages, what about ppl bringing in cheatsheets as they go to vote, should they be searched, poor people count ten times less then rich etc etc etc.
    That is just of the top of my head.

    The issue, the BIG issue is Corruption.
    Without corruption we could all live our lives happily as subjects for his majesty the King.

    Corruption needs to be taken into account for any forward thinking solution.

    Which is why I believe in Direct Democracy.
    Let the people vote for the laws themselves.
    The problem ur trying to adress with weighted votes would take care of itself, people with no knowledge or interest would simply not bother to vote on complicated law proposals every week. At first.

    But then they would get into it, as the big contentious issues would start to arise.
    Immigration, legalization, restricitve laws about alcohol and roadtraffic, would all cause massive public uproar as they come up. These discussions would divide ppl, but no longer along clear lines, as it is with our current system.

    Righ now we divide ppls political ideology along an archaic and 200 year old line going from “left” to “right”.
    This is based on the fallacy that someone with “left” leaning ideologies will agree on every topic with someone else on the same side of the spectrum and vice versa.
    This is, ofcourse, completly untrue.

    But in a Direct Democracy, ppl would find that the ones u argued against on tuesday, might very well support ur cause on thursday, thus this system would divide but ina way that would ultimatly unify to a greater extent then today, ppl politically.

    And thus the political apathy, born of representative democracy, would slowly be cast off, untill we have a generation completly comfortable with being political actors in a directly democratic world.

    The point isnt that its going to be perfect, thats impossible, but it will be better.

    And thats the point.

  2. Andrea Faré's Gravatar Andrea Faré
    2013 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    Hi Stefan,
    I agree from a theoretical point of view but I would weight the vote not based on criteria of awareness of the political situation, but on short logical tests expressed in multiple choice form which require no domain competence.
    I believe that logic is a better proxy of one’s ability to discern between what is true or false and ultimately between what is communicated correctly and what is communicated making use of logical fallacies which are so common in the language of politicians.
    I would prepare 10 logical question of ascending difficulty and weight the final vote on the result of such test. The question set could be dynamically composed at vote time for each voter based on a repository of thousands of equivalent difficulty.

    Best Regards.

    Andrea from Italy.

  3. Andrea Faré's Gravatar Andrea Faré
    2013 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    Aurelio,
    I agree with you that a direct democracy would be a better solution. As in a direct democracy influence is related to participation rate, which is negatively correlated with ignorance. Nevertheless in the hope of embarquing in a bigger effort to make democracy direct If we want to try fix a representative democracy in the short term, I think that weight could be a practical solution. If you think about it platforms of direct democracy (like Liquid Feedback) already incorporate the concept of vote delegation, which makes some vote stronger than others based on subjective criteria.

  4. Stefan Hansen's Gravatar Stefan Hansen
    2013 at 3:31 am | Permalink

    Thank you both for you comments. Since I only saw this now, and only have a few minutes, allow me to only comment on what Andrea said regarding using a logical assessment. I see the appeal, but I don’t believe it would work – for various reasons. First, we are not as rational as we like to think, as much psychological research has shown. Second, one can be a logical wizard and still have no clue about politics.

    Aurelio, you raise some good points that I would like to address when times permits. I feel confident that I have solutions to the things you point out.

    All the best,
    Stefan Hansen

  5. Andrea Faré's Gravatar Andrea Faré
    2014 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Stefan I understand your point, I believe rational thinking to be the best conceivable proxy of the ability to vote correctly, as having “clues about politics” nowadays only means being well versed in the intricacies of the system we are trying to simplify, and sometimes such knowledge is the very obstacle to coming up with the right ideas, or to understand them when they are shown to us.

    On the other hand sound reasoning abilities are a prerequisites (maybe more a necessary than a sufficient condition) to perform the following activities:

    - Independent evaluation of the quality of information sources
    - deduction
    - fact checking
    - Avoidance and immunity from logical fallacies (the strongest weapon in the arsenal of politicians)

    I believe that a diffused understading of logical fallacies alone (the learning of which should be encouraged in school) would rebalance our society very well, even without weighting votes (I am a fan of both solutions)

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Contact

Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies

Landgreven 3
DK-1301 Copenhagen K

Tel.: +45 33 11 71 76
E-mail: cifs@cifs.dk
Web: www.cifs.dk, twitter, facebook

About The Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies

Founded in 1970 by Professor Thorkil Kristensen, former Minister of Finance and Secretary-General of the OECD. We strengthen the basis for decision-making in public and private organizations by creating awareness of the future and highlighting its importance to the present.

Contributing with knowledge and inspiration, the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies supports decision-making. We identify and analyse trends that influence the future nationally and internationally. Through research, analyses, seminars, presentations, reports, and newsletters, we give advice on the future.