Is everybody's opinion equally valuable?

[jake-the-peg]

In our idea of democracy we have one person one vote.

A professor of political science or economics has the same vote as a 18 year old apprentice.

Say your vote depended on your level of education. 1 vote for all but an extra vote for an A-level education - 2 for degree level - 3 for postgratuate etc.

Account for "university of life" by similar points for professional qualifications or a similar sceme.

Would this change politics?

Would we still have the personality based politics we now have?

Would it change the balance of power to the right or to the left?

Or would it not make a difference at all?

Would it be acceptable and if not why?

[Theland]

What an excellent question.
I galls me when all year round, blokes I work with ogle the nudes in the Star and Sun and Sport, turn off the radio news for endless pop garbage 24/7, and give a blank stare if anything political is mentioned, or indeed if anything other than football, ale and sex is spoken of.
So, in my opinion, they ill informed to cast a vote with any degree of integrity.
But who can deny them? In time of war they would be called upon to die for their country, and they pay as much tax as anybody else.
So, maybe a vote per person, and an extra one for those willing to sit a political awareness test or something along those lines.
The same problem exists with juries, idiots weighing up sometimes intricate evidence that cost a person their freedom.
There's got to be a better way.

[WaldoMcFroog]

As the famous quote says: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time."
Winston Churchill

I'm reasonably certain that it would send society to the left, by the way, I'm just not sure how much.

[Loosehead]

1. Yes as knowledge and understanding would be more important so politicians would have to generate more substance rather than appealing to the lowest common denominator.

2. Yes I think so but there would be a shift in the personalities, certainly cosmetic things would be less important .

3. I think the right would benefit in such a system, also you would have less voter volatility on small issues. I mean a lot of people base their vote on a particular party's approach to one small issue and ignore the rest, I mean you could be pro slavery but as long as you oppose Fox Hunting and agree that Page 3 girls are vital to the nation you'll get in!

4. It would make a difference not sure whether it's for the better though.

5. No it is unnaccceptable to base voting power on traditional education baubles, I do however rue the system that allows an 18 year old chav to negate my vote when they usually know sod all about what they are voting for. Possibly some other system where there are extra votes earnable by passing exams based on poliitical understanding, eg everyone get's 1 vot ebut you may earn another by demonstrating you understand political issues etc. Even that is fraught with danger as it would be easy for a government to skew the system.

Overall Jake what we have is bad, but it's the best we have!

[China Doll]

It would change politics for the worse as far as I can see Jake. It would create a them and us divide and another class system.

I have a degree and what I would call a fair grasp on the issues that are being discussed in newspapers to do with politics and how we live in the West. However my fair grasp will crumble and wither under close examination as I don't know nearly as much as some of the pixels I see on here. My history is terrible. So just having a degree makes no difference.

As much as some of the opinions displayed on here leave me thinking they must be on a wind up, part of what makes this country great is that we have free will and can demonstrate this will. If a system were developed that penalised people for being stupid or not having the same opinion as me (while appealing at times) would be taking away the idea of democracy anyway wouldn't it?

Because of the divide that I perceive it would create I do not think it would be acceptable.

[Quizmonster]

If political opinion polls over the past month or so reveal anything at all it is that about half the electorate is utterly unfit to have the franchise at all! If one's opinion as to who should 'rule' us is that volatile and easily swayed does it really matter who does?
But, as others have already suggested above, democracy is the least worst system there is. We'd better just stick with it.

[ludwig]

It would shift politics to the right because the better qualified tend to be better off, and the better off tend to vote for the right. It's a bad idea.

We actually used to have a similar system a while ago where the votes were weighted but it was based on gender; Men's votes counted 1 and women's votes counted 0, because women's opinions were deemed less worthy at that time.

It eventually came to be seen as unfair and was changed to the system we have now.

[jake-the-peg]

Interesting opinions.

I'm actually unsure of whether it would actually change things.

A lot would depend on what the educational makeup of the marginal constituencies are.

I agree that our current democracy is the best we have but does that mean it's the best possible? And how do you measure how good a system is?

Clearly everybody's opinion is not equally valuable - if you're after a medical or legal opinion you don't go to the pub.

I'd agree that just basing a democracy on formal education isn't ideal but then neither is a system where PMs are selected by soundbites and baby kissing.

The "them and us" issue would be a concern which is why nobody should be disenfranchised in the way that an eligability criteria would, whether on the old property ownership or gender tests or education

I don't think you'd ever get elected with it in your manifesto though especially when everyone is constantly being told how important their invididual votes are in so many TV shows all the time

[mibn2cweus]

An educated voter should recognise that it is in their own best interest that all voters are equally well educated. Maintaining a democratic system contributes to the will of the educated to see to it that everyone receives the education required to make a rational decision at the ballot box.

Learning is not a forcible process. The challenge this presents is to persuade those who are lacking in requisite knowledge of the advantage that knowledge provides and once provided with the incentive to learn to provide them with the resources to acquire that knowledge. I believe such an effort constitutes a politically and economically justified and worthwile investment towards the future well-being of the human race that is in the best interest of us all.

One important question that remains to be answered by this is: What do we teach them?

[Theland]

What do we teach them?
An equally good question, as the government of the day could load the curriculum in some way.
But the structure of government, civil duties as well as civil rights, and the general spectrum from extreme left wing to extreme right wing, and the desirable centre ground, might be a good starting point.
Then again, as we lose more of our independence to Brussels, will it matter too much?

[mibn2cweus]

After thought:

In the arrogance which is so often a residue of formal education we should not discount the knowledge we stand to gain from the experiences of our street-wise cousins living within an undiluted naked reality. It is no less important to take a look from the "bottom-up" as it is to examine reality as it is perceived from the ivory towers. There are some equally important facets of knowledge that are acquired through not having invested a significant portion of our lifetime in the formal setting of the classroom and experiencing first-hand the real-life consequences of the applications of what we have learned there.

[brionon]

I've wrestled with this for years. Without trying to get up anyone's nose-Why do we call some people insane for
Worshipping the Devil and believing that Mrs. Thatcher will rescue us from him and accept others belief that they eat the flesh of their God. I'm not condemning the Christians who believe this -I just want to know who judges and how ?

[wildwood]

It is amazing how often one hears of Mr & Mrs Soandso who loudly confess to always vote for the Breakaleg party because their parents and forefathers have always done so... No idea why, just that their family have always supported that party. They are proud of their loyalty and feel they are doing the country a favour. What a waste of a valuable vote.

There are also many other voters who are really wasting their opportunity to contribute in shaping the society they live in by voting for candidates on looks, sex or notoriety.

Despite that, I still support the one person one vote system as a certain intelligence level requirement would reduce representation of the lower socio-economic section of society even more. Besides, then I probably won't be allowed to vote :-)

[Theland]

Mibs makes an excellent point that can applicable elsewhere.
I work for a successful organisation that is profitable and attracts investment, yet despite the fact that the management must be getting most things right, as evidenced by the bottom line, I am amazed at the inefficiency and waste in many areas, that could be rectified if only the ivory tower management would consider some substantial input from the lower echelons of the organisation.
They don't, they won't, and it is a fear of losing control that prevents this happening.
It could be an even more profitable organisation, and a far happier one, if the input from below was taken seriously.

[Mr Chipps]

If we get down to the basics of democracy, each person's vote is for what he or she deems to be the best for himself or herself - not for the good of all. Therefore everyone's vote is equal, uneducated or educated, informed or ill-informed, rich or poor.
Theoretically it is the one area in which we are all equal and no single person is 'more equal' than any other (with apologies to Napoleon and friends).