Since responsibility based voting reforms all actually lend themselves to further corruption, we’ll have to think of another approach to vote sizing. What if, rather than looking at vote sizing as a way to further the cause of a ‘chosen’ few who merely want power (perhaps for their own purposes) we flip our beliefs on their head and instead give this responsibility to those who actually need it? Then, rather than having just a select few people keeping the social order in the way they see fit, we have all the people able to take responsibility for themselves. It shows how versatile vote sizing is, in that it can be a tool for either side of the who-gets-what debate. So need-based vote sizing differs dramatically from other weighting schemes in that instead of further elevating a person’s standing, it seeks to separate the person from the political process.
The mind-bender being: What kind of enlightened person prefers being personally favored with a weighted vote over institutionalizing this need-based kind of balancing act?
At the core of vote sizing is empowerment of the world’s poorer and middle classes, who have been given the shaft throughout history. Vote-counting pundits make the assumption that all people are equally affected by corruption, crime, poor health and frustration, and therefore everyone has the same need to remedy these. Vote sizing takes a different tack by addressing the real need to change the status quo by tapping into the wisdom of the poor, a well of pragmatic knowledge gained through experience.
The goal of vote sizing is to pull us away from the trend of favoring aristocracy and to restore balance by bringing about a lasting and truly grassroots movement. Vote sizing is about giving more voice, not to those who have proven themselves worthy of it, but to those who need it. It focuses on a different kind of merit – that of the person who has learned to get by on less – and just as importantly, it puts power in the hands of those who need it most – those genuinely plagued by corruption.
Vote sizing is less about giving everyone equal votes than about addressing the actual power of each person’s vote so that those in need of political power get it. In this way, vote sizing is much more radical and appeals to people who are desperate for a chance to change the system. By this means, the poor will have the power to elect to office those who are willing to truly represent their interests, and those with money will no longer have the power to buy governments. That is the essence of democracy.
The suspicion that most reforms are easily circumnavigated remains well grounded, for the bulk of reforms that have been put in place, even after long and hard-won battles, have proved to be insufficient to stop the flood of wealth-based interests from dominating the halls of power. People eventually grow disgusted with politics because they see how determined some corrupters are at finding a way through. Vote sizing, however, by adhering to a fixed formula based on income tax records, cannot be marginalized, circumvented or shifted. It is a serious way to reform the election process and, to those who believe we are in need of some radical thinking, the most radical idea.
Finding out who does and doesn’t need is easy: Regardless of how some people can plead their case better than others (we may even use some of the same tests described above!), there is really one simple way to evaluate what someone’s need level is, and that is by looking at how much wealth they have. So to implement need-based vote sizing, we’ll design it so that the lower the person’s wealth, the greater will be the weight of that person’s vote (and obviously vice-versa).Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The Vote Sizing Institute's Corruption.Wiki (and Blog)