Before the 1832 reform act in order to qualify to vote you had to be 1) Male, 2) age 21 or more, 3) own property above a certain value. These, and other conditions, restricted the electorate to about 4% of the population. Over the next 100 years, the bar was lowered in stages until property qualifications (for men) were lifted in 1918, at the same time women over 30 were given the vote, then women over 21 in 1928. From 1970 the age was lowered to 18.
Scotland makes its own rules so, with the help of the SNP’s big majority in the Scottish parliament, the voting age was lowered to 16 for the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. Despite this last-minute act of blatant “gerrymandering”, the referendum was still defeated by 55-45.
Left-wing parties, knowing that young people tend to vote for them, are almost always the ones to propose a lowering of the voting age. For example “In 1946 Czechoslovakia became the first state to reduce the voting age to 20 years”. This was during the Russian occupation and helped the Communists win the 1948 election, although I am sure they would have “won” regardless.
In 1969 the UK Labour govt cynically reduced the voting age to 18, but this did not stop them losing the 1970 election.
In 1974 the Australian Labor govt did the same but they also lost the 1975 election.
Leftist idealism has lowered the bar of “responsible adulthood” to 18 y.o’s, because more voters is assumed to be “more democratic” than the earlier 21 y.o threshold, which in its turn was considered “more democratic” than a 25 year or 30 year minimum. It seems to be taken for granted that the only possible way of “improving democracy” further would be to lower the bar to include 16 year-olds. It is no accident that, because young people are more prone to hold idealist opinions, reducing the voting age is very enthusiastically supported by leftists because it will “strengthen democracy”. Once that milestone has been achieved – and it is a good bet that the very next Labour govt will do so – the pressure will then be on to strengthen democracy even further by giving the vote to 14-year olds*.
[stextbox id=’info’]Virtual Saint and (alleged) scion of democracy Nelson Mandela wanted to give 14-year olds the vote since “children were instrumental in the overthrow of apartheid”.
OMOV (one man one vote) has become so synonymous with democracy that – just as Muslims claim Muhammad to be God’s final and ultimate messenger (and they brook no challenge to that) – OMOV must be the absolutely final and ultimate and most highly-evolved iteration of Democracy that is possible to be. Is it only me who questions this cult-like fanaticism? Do you see where this is going?
OMOV can never be rolled-back – it is a vehicle with no reverse gear in an ever-narrowing one-way downhill cul-de-sac..!
OMOV can NEVER be re-considered or reformed by a “democratic vote” because, in the highly unlikely event of such a vote ever being authorised, that would require a VOTE that the mindless lock-stepping “majority” are certain to oppose. Just as turkeys won’t vote for Christmas.
Since reform of democracy cannot even be contemplated, let alone discussed, this is surely proof positive that we do NOT have a genuine democracy, we have a CATCH-22 dilemma..!
So how do we cut this Gordion knot..?
Anyone who would dare propose that some people deserve more than just one vote would nowadays be denounced as an ELITIST at best, or a fascist-in-waiting at worst. And yet nobody would seriously dispute that some individuals are far more valuable to a society than others. Surely those individuals, who have proved themselves both by deed and by example, deserve – as a matter of principle – to be awarded with EXTRA VOTES..? Partially as a gesture of gratitude to those individuals, but also as an incentive to others to pull their weight in their community. How many “extra votes” is of course a matter for debate.
Such a system would – at least in principle – be a much higher form of democracy than OMOV.
Nobody in their right mind would want an unqualified person to repair their house or their car, let alone fix their teeth or operate on their very person. So why does everyone behave as if voting is such a trivial and un-important duty that anyone and EVERYONE – criminals, the mentally-disturbed, paedophiles, psychopaths, and RACISTS (worst of all apparently) – can be trusted with choosing which organised gang of self-serving politicians makes important decisions “on their behalf” for the next 4/5 years? And if anyone is brave or foolish enough to suggest that perhaps some people deserve to have a teensy-weeny bit of a bigger say in such an important decision – eg, 2 or 3 votes rather than just one – that person is angrily denounced as an “elitist” at best, a Fascist at worst..!
Why is everyone so afraid to say what everyone knows instinctively – that some people are wiser, more capable, and more trustworthy than others..? For example, Most of us assume that churchmen for example, are (or should be) on a somewhat higher moral level than us mere mortals. Otherwise why would countless generation of churchgoers have patiently listened to their long rambling sermons..?
Do they just think it would be too complicated to change the system? Or do they fear that a qualified voting system would favour a wealthy or well-educated individuals – an electoral aristocracy if you like? Even if by a miracle some form of qualified voting were to be re-introduced, the qualifiers would probably be trivial.
Each and EVERY OA-City will have the advantage of starting completely anew with no established citizenry, no hierarchy, no vested interests, no identity groups, no political pressure groups, or the need to pander to anyone.
Just as every independent restaurant creates its own individual menu, each independent city state could create its own individual rulebook
I propose OA-Cities adopt a progressive voting scale based on a range of civic qualities (eg., the “5C” as outlined below). This would be regarded as pure common-sense were it applied to any institution other than voting, like running a company for example. If I were to buy a single Apple share and then, at the annual shareholders meeting, I were then to demand “equality” with every other shareholder (big or small) I would be dismissed as a raving fool and told to shut up or take leave. But somehow and inexplicably, countless millions of apparently sane people have been brain-washed into believing that, when it comes to choosing which political party will rule their country, and ONLY in that case, every individual (regardless of ability or morality or conduct) must be considered the absolute equal of every other, and any “elitist” suggestion that some people are inherently more valuable to a society and should therefore have a greater say than others, would inevitably lead to the imposition of a tyranny. Actually the opposite is the case, as demonstrated by both Nazism and Communism, but that is another story.
Empowering seniors with more “voting power” than juniors would go a long way to restoring their former respect and importance in the community and that, I believe, would be beneficial to societal stability. I am not suggesting that old people should have more votes than young people simply based on their age, but that society should recognise and reward each individuals “cumulative contribution”. But how are we to measure that?
Just as with “Apple” and other corporations, the founders and major stakeholders of DSC, who are likely to be in their 40’s and 50’s (or more), will want to have a bigger say in important decisions and maintain control over “their” community (because it is THEIRS) as much as possible, within reason and limits of course. This is not to say that the founders, and the “elders” generally, will have permanent veto powers or that nothing can change or happen without their consent. As younger people age and mature they too will accumulate more voting credits and they in turn will gain more influence. This is the same as in life and it is right and just that it should be that way in politics too. A benign and flexible meritocratic heirarchy, as opposed to the absolute equalitarianism and inflexibility of OMOV, is surely the natural scheme of things.
The C5 qualifiers are, in increasing order of importance….
CITIZENSHIP, CONDUCT, COMMITMENT, CONTRIBUTION, and COMPREHENSION,
- CITIZEN – all adult citizens granted a single basic “starter” vote irrespective of merit (i.e., just as with OMOV)
- CONDUCT – offenders could be “fined” by having their voting rights suspended or credits deducted (as with motoring offences).
- COMMITMENT – established citizens deserve a greater say than newcomers, so extra votes could be awarded based on length of residency.
- CONTRIBUTION – extra votes awarded based on an individual’s TAX bracket and/or accumulated hours of CAP.
- COMPREHENSION – extra votes awarded based on an individual’s understanding of the issue to be voted on.