from the crazy-ideas-that-might-not-be-crazy? dept
Instead, America should implement weighted voting to make voting more objective and fair, and give the young more power, because the consequences of political decisions will affect them the longest. Weighted voting would restore power to twenty and thirty year olds, where it resided before the advent of medical science. With the aid of computers, it would be easy to give everyone a Voting Score, just like we all have a credit score.He then goes through and suggests a way to calculate this voting score, which would take into effect the level of political understanding, voter participation rates and the amount of time that people would have to "live with the consequences" (i.e., longer if you're younger). He weights the whole thing out and comes out with the following weights:
Also, as he notes, this system means at the age of 80 you lose your right to vote (and, if you are older than that, your vote somehow counts against you?). Pushing me towards believing this is pure satire is the statement, "But then again haven't these folks beaten the odds and outlived all their friends and they shouldn't be voting anyway." However, is there perhaps some value in the larger concept? There definitely are some issues that are generational, in which younger people know that, as they get older, public sentiment is likely to finally shift over (civil rights being a big one), and I wonder if a voting system like this might speed up some changes that could be good. At the same time, it seems like there could be some pretty serious negative consequences for older folks. While they may be out of touch on some issues, does that really mean we should deny them the right to vote? Doesn't seem worth it.
Still, in a world where many people consider one man/one vote sacred, are there better ways to handle things?