www.ditl.org

I still fail to see the correlation between income and intelligence. People can become rich through a variety of means, including lying, cheating, manipulation, bribery and personal connections. This does not make them more intelligent than an average person, only more unscrupulous.

If you want to give a certain demographic more power in governmental decision making, it should be the smartest 2%, not the richest 2%.

Reliant121 wrote:Alright then, the want for making the government more efficient is fine. But it should never come before the founding principles of the nation which is to give everyone a fair say. Just because it can be inconvenient to an effective government doesn't mean its a bad thing. I personally far rather value everyone having the vote than the government being able to shave time off of doing something.

I don't want to take away the fact that everyone gets a fair say. After all, that's what the Lower Chamber is for. I don't want to take THAT away, and I think it's a very improtant part of our currentl political system. What I am talking about is alternatives to the current Upper Chamber (Senate) in Canada.

Remember the importance of constitutional perogative. Ultimately, taxes, laws and budget have to go through the Lower Chamber first. So it's not like you could have tax cuts made by the Higher Chamber on their own, or the Higher Chamber could cut Public Healthcare.

Tsukiyumi wrote:I still fail to see the correlation between income and intelligence. People can become rich through a variety of means, including lying, cheating, manipulation, bribery and personal connections. This does not make them more intelligent than an average person, only more unscrupulous.

First of all, many of the incomes steeming out of the bad things you mention wouldn't really be declared on a tax form. Second of all, using a proportional representation based on the amount of tax spent could be an incentive for some taxpayers to actually pay MORE tax, and not trying to be a tax dodge (or at least, trying less). You know, they would have the feeling of getting directly something in return of the tax paid, even if it's simply a higher representation on the Higher Chamber.

Tsukiyumi wrote:If you want to give a certain demographic more power in governmental decision making, it should be the smartest 2%, not the richest 2%.

I once flirted with that idea. The Geniocracy principle, but then I turned away from it, for the simple reason that its very limited in so many points of view. First of all, how do you determine who are the top 2%? What kind of intelligence tests available? Why being limitative to the top 2%, and not 2.5%? Why treat equally the people between the top 2% and the top 1% to those in the top 0,000005% of the population?

Finally, intelligence is so blurred. You have people with high academic intelligence, or financial, or artistic. Intelligence doens't mean these people would actually be good at managing things, people or money. Ultimately, we want people who have proven, at some level, that they have the skill to manage their assets in a competent way. I like the idea of proportionally representing people based on their tax payment because:

1- It's easy to measure. There is no multiple metrics to consider, as you just ask: how much you paid in taxes in the last 4 years?
2- It's non-exclusive. Yes, the top 10% richest are overrepresented, but the lower-incomes still have the right to participate in these elections, even if their votes count for less. You aren't deciding "only the top 10% can vote", you are simply weighting the importance of each vote based on the contribution they make to the state.

There is exceptions, but I think the rule of average means that people who have a higher income, on average, also happens to be better skilled at managing their money. Either it's because they do it themselves, or they know the right people to trust. Rich stupid heirs that get a lot of money from the family business will still have a bigger voice than the clever and aware young doctor, but there is no perfect system, there will always be flawed and exceptions. I still think the laws of average mean you have, on average, better skilled people at managing money/people in the top-taxpayers tier than in the bottom tier.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:What I am talking about is alternatives to the current Upper Chamber (Senate) in Canada.

Here's the crux of the issue. By your own description, the Canadian Senate is scarcely representative - service in the Canadian Senate is by appointment. Replacing a barely-representative legislative body with a slightly-more representative body is fine. By applying this idea to the U.S., however, you're now talking about replacing an elected body of representation with a far less representative body.

Mikey wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:What I am talking about is alternatives to the current Upper Chamber (Senate) in Canada.

Here's the crux of the issue. By your own description, the Canadian Senate is scarcely representative - service in the Canadian Senate is by appointment. Replacing a barely-representative legislative body with a slightly-more representative body is fine. By applying this idea to the U.S., however, you're now talking about replacing an elected body of representation with a far less representative body.

I am aware of that. But I am trying to find a new political structure as an alternative, one that wouldn't be just a repeat of what has already been done.

I understand, but you're talking about changing one structure based on the inadequacies of a different structure. Believe you me, the U.S. system has plenty of flaws; but inadequate influence for the rich isn't one of them.

Mikey wrote:...Believe you me, the U.S. system has plenty of flaws; but inadequate influence for the rich isn't one of them.

Besides lobbyists, anyways.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Mikey wrote:...Believe you me, the U.S. system has plenty of flaws; but inadequate influence for the rich isn't one of them.

Besides lobbyists, anyways.

Er, yeah - I said that inadequate repreentation for the rich isn't a problem here.

Mikey wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Mikey wrote:...Believe you me, the U.S. system has plenty of flaws; but inadequate influence for the rich isn't one of them.

Besides lobbyists, anyways.

Er, yeah - I said that inadequate repreentation for the rich isn't a problem here.

Unbalance of representativity might actually be an interesting proposition. I mean, the whole "2 senators/state" system is a nifty way to keep the smaller states relevant, and thus making sure they remain involved in the political process, even if they are a minority compared to the coastal states.

Granting a minority a sur-representation on a level OTHER than the lower chamber (where pure representation should be king) might actually have them being more involved in the political process they are now participating in. Now, I was wondering how to achieve this.

Um, that's exactly what we have now. Representation without regard for population in one house, representation based on population in the other.

BTW, the smallest states are coastal states.

Our set up is a hold over from the original intent of the founders that the central government would be weak and the states would hold all the power. The House provides representation of the citizens to the Federal government where all citizens are equal, in theory, and the Senate provides representation of the states. The the emergence of the strong Federal government post civil war I'm not certain the Senate serves much of a point any more in terms of representation given that the states were stripped of much of their Federal level decision making power.

With the backseat status of reserved powers, that's why our Senate is now more of a representative body - just one that, via statewide districting and longer terms, is able to operate as a less localized check on the House of Representatives.

In theory, anyway.

Mikey wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Mikey wrote:...Believe you me, the U.S. system has plenty of flaws; but inadequate influence for the rich isn't one of them.

Besides lobbyists, anyways.

Er, yeah - I said that inadequate repreentation for the rich isn't a problem here.

I think my glasses need glasses.

I think a good example of why some democratic institutions just aren't well designed is the UN. Over there, 1 country, 1 vote. But it leads to pretty stupid decisions (Saudi Arabia on the Women Right's defence council? SERIOUSLY?)

Now, change the voting power to favor the countries that contribute more to the UN, troop- and money-wise, with a cap at 10% of the voting right, and you might have something more interesting, and less parasitic members.

Now, that's something behind which I can see the logic. To play devil's advocate, though, let me ask this: what do you do about the disenfranchisement that this would cause among the smaller members? Sure, they can be shouted down or forced into line, but that's pretty much the antithesis of the founding philosophy of the UN.

Mikey wrote:Now, that's something behind which I can see the logic. To play devil's advocate, though, let me ask this: what do you do about the disenfranchisement that this would cause among the smaller members? Sure, they can be shouted down or forced into line, but that's pretty much the antithesis of the founding philosophy of the UN.

I would ask them to contribute more then, in the form of troops for UN intervention, for donation to other countries or by money for the administrative.

You are right tho. The whole principle of having non-representative part of the electoral system is to avoid the minority being oppressed by the majority, which kinda what happens in the U.S. with the Senate System (maybe it's not what was intended originally, but it sure does its job right now!). Corrupted societies with civil strife are usually those with a pure representative system, which always seems to works out for the dominant demographics, and only for them.

Giving those minority a sur-representation on another electoral level might help a lot. At the same way, maybe the U.N. could have special election where the biggest contributors are also the biggest votes, where the other votes will still be 1 vote/country.