I'd like to propose two changes to some common election-related practices that could, possibly, improve our ability to elect credible, wise, honest, and intelligent leaders. Or, at least, to elect the best people we have to choose from.
#1) Knowledge-Weighted Voting
The more radical of the two suggestions is to weight each voter's vote based on that voter's mastery of important, relevant knowledge. Why is it that a vote cast by someone who is utterly ignorant of any and all facts related to the candidates, offices, and issues counts as much as a vote cast by someone who is highly informed about the issues and candidates and engaged in the voting process? Shouldn't we reward a citizen who takes voting seriously enough to understand what's being voted on, or the electoral process in general, with greater influence on the outcome?
The obvious objection to this violation of "one person, one vote" is that it could possibly deny someone a say altogether. Well, we already do that. In all states, children cannot vote. Why not? The feeling is that children (a) are unable to fully grasp the issues, and/or (b) are easily influenced by their parents. Even though an adult were to fit these same criteria (not able, or willing, to fully grasp the issues, and easily influenced by a spouse, parent, or child), that adult would still get to cast a full ballot. So I do not see where the rationale makes particular sense in denying suffrage to children.
Another obvious objection to this violation is that it penalizes those of low intelligence, who may not be able to understand the questions. If the voter isn't able to understand the questions, he is unlikely to be able to understand the issues on the ballot. And someone who is voting without a reasonable understanding is not contributing to the validity of the election's results. Moreover, how can we justify giving a mentally retarded adult the right to vote when a highly intelligent, highly informed 15-year-old is not?
One way to implement this idea would be to add a simple quiz to the ballot. By asking the voter to take a quick, 10-question quiz, made up of a random set of questions from a large pool, the system could then ascertain what weight should be applied to that voter's ballot. If, for example, the voter got 9 out of 10 questions correct, his vote would count 0.9 of a full vote towards each candidate/issue he voted on.
Obviously, we would want everyone to cast a fully weighted ballot. To that end, we would hand out voter education pamphlets with all the questions and answers contained therein. In effect, we are copying the written testing system we currently have to evaluate an individual's readiness to drive a car and applying it to evaluate an individual's readiness to cast a ballot.
#2) Change the Debate Format
Watching the "town hall-style" Presidential debate on TV last night, I was struck by how rigid the rules were in denying either party to correct a mischaracterization (or outright lie) told by his opponent. I would suggest that all future debates have a team of fact-checkers watching the debate and examining the truthfulness of the candidates' statements when they're said.
If a statement is made where more than one or two fact-checkers find reason to question the statement's consistency with facts, then the opponent is automatically given a 1-minute "final word" period to correct the misstatement. Consider this the "video review" of calls used in pro football, but for debates.
If candidates know that they will cede the final word to their opponent every time they tell a lie (or stretch the truth beyond reason), I believe the candidates will reduce their tendency to deviate from speaking honestly...at least to a degree.
The nice thing about this proposal, in my opinion, is that it could be implemented immediately. Not only could the fact-checkers be recruited and managed online (thanks to instant messaging and microblogging technologies), those watching at home could also participate via 2-way cable systems and/or text messaging. Participatory debates with instant fact-checking would be an interesting experiment, I think.
Leave a comment