We could use two different measures to weigh the value of the vote:
The apportionment of seats among the electoral districts.
The education, knowledge, or experience that constituents have in order to vote.
The first measure has to do with the proportionality in which political representatives are elected. And some may argue that a one-person-one-vote system may be “fairer” than a D’Hont Law system, where the highest averages allocate the seats, or a winner-takes-all system, where the party getting more votes is granted extra seats. But whether you favor one or the other, someone else might argue that the one they support is more proportional and “fair”. Therefore, fairness and proportionality seem to be somehow subjective, and if objectivity cannot be presented with facts to convince the other subjects in dissension, the majority decides.
So, one question for debate could be: Where does objectivity lie when it comes to determining if an electoral system is more “fair and proportional”? Or, is there such a thing as objectivity in the choice of an electoral system?
The second one is even thornier than the first one. After all, if some people deem an institution like an electoral system as unfair, it may be taken lightly, but when other people might consider a constituent as incompetent to vote or simply an “idiot”, it could hurt someone’s feelings. Yet, it should not really be so if we remember its etymological meaning, which comes from “the Greek noun ἰδιώτης (idiōtēs): "a private person, individual", "a private citizen" (as opposed to someone with a political office); also "a common man", "a person lacking professional skill or layman".
In old Greek, Idio means “personal, your own”, as it would in terms like idiosyncrasy or idiomatic; -tes is a suffix that indicates an agent who performs an action. So, for the Greeks, idiots were citizens who only cared for their own thing and didn’t feel concerned by public affairs; and in fact, doing the opposite of what a Zoon Politikon would do, as Aristotle remarked. Later on, the Romans started to use the term idiot to describe an unskilled and/or ignorant person and so, in that guise, it came down to the romance languages and most European languages with the pejorative meaning that we all know.
Thus, if we take into account this double entendre, the value of your vote is not only affected by your level of ignorance as a constituent, but also by the level of commitment to the regulation of the country, county, city, or polis, if you will. Then, should our votes’ worth be the same? How costly is it to be oblivious to the political system which establishes the basic rules of communal living? How does such oblivion affect other compatriots? Do we all agree that in order to detect and prevent certain malfunctions within the system, it is necessary to have a piece of minimum knowledge about how it works? Could we call this basic knowledge political education?
This term was already used by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) in his treatise Considerations on Representative Government. This philosopher, liberal politician, economist, member of parliament, champion of utilitarianism and, together with his wife Harriet Taylor, one of the pioneers of women’s suffrage, also advocated for a weighted vote based on education: “I hold it of so much importance that the institutions of the country should stamp the opinions of persons of a more educated class as entitled to greater weight than those of the less educated; and I should still contend for assigning plurality of votes to authenticated superiority of education were it only to give the tone to public feeling, irrespective of any direct political consequences.” “Until there shall have been devised, and until opinion is willing to accept, some mode of plural voting which may assign to education as such the degree of superior influence due to it, and sufficient as a counterpoise to the numerical weight of the least educated class, for so long the benefits of completely universal suffrage can not be obtained without bringing with them, as it appears to me, more than equivalent evils.”
Hippolyte Taine, a French thinker, a major proponent of social positivism, founding father of historicist criticism, critic, and historian of the 19th century, also stated that: “Votes should not be counted, they should be weighed.” And our contemporary global economist and best-selling author Dambisa Moyo also advocates for a weighted voting system by which the value of the vote depends on the constituent’s qualification. “Endless elections, unqualified leaders, uninformed voters, and short-term thinking are impeding economic growth. When democracy works, it delivers economic growth and fundamental freedom in a way that no other system can. And when it fails, it is rarely, if ever, replaced by a system that can do a better job of delivering for its population. Democracies must therefore adapt, or they will further decay.”
But, what do we mean by “qualification” or “political education”? As we mentioned earlier, when someone is an internationally renowned architect, they are supposed to know a lot about arches, joists, and foundations, but do they know about the most basic proceedings of political and economical policies? Like the rest of us, they are not supposed to. And of course, like the rest of us, they place the ballot in someone's hands mixing “amateur” political knowledge with the political current which might have been underlying through family and friends, plus what they’ve heard on the news, read in the newspapers or social networks. Needless to say that illiterate constituents (of different degrees) will have very few tools to assess what politicians claim to gain their vote and it looks like they could be easily manipulated. Or they might be guided by some gut feeling or influenced by the looks or their own personal relationships. Or simply, they could be faithful in perpetuity to a political party as they might be to a football team.
Yet, political education is not such a complicated subject. One doesn’t have to do a master's or get a degree, but it is rather a basic knowledge about what constitutes a democracy as a political system and a general appreciation of how we have reached the point at which we are now. In a tyranny, you don’t have to worry about your education. The tyrant knows exactly what to do with you and your education. But in democracy, the constituents are the ones who have the power of the vote and therefore the responsibility. It would be difficult to establish offhand what the contents of a political education should be. But, for the sake of the debate, I may suggest three different realms which could comprise this basic knowledge and its approximate length:
HISTORICAL: Knowing in general terms the key moments in someone's country’s modern history that have led up to the present situation. Being the renaissance the starting point of modernity where key concepts were reborn. (100 pages)
PHILOSOPHICAL-POLITICAL-ECONOMICAL: Acquainting yourself with the different main philosophical systems that have been developed since their birth in ancient Greece and their main proponents. Becoming aware of how these philosophical currents have evolved into modern political and economical currents, and how they might be linked to the political and economical ideas of the party wherein one voter wishes to deposit his or her trust. (100 pages)
THE VIRTUES: In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle reminds us: “… forming habits of one kind or another from the earliest childhood does not make a small difference; it makes a big difference, or rather, it makes all the difference.” Knowing in-depth the definition and scope of the classical virtues, learning their theory, and practicing their postulates is paramount to, first of all, be aware of them in oneself and secondly, have a better ability to detect them in our representatives. (50 pages)
One may or may not agree if these three realms contain enough knowledge for the issue at hand or if, perhaps, it needs more or less information. But, once we have settled on what a basic political education should be, we could then ask ourselves how this knowledge would rank the constituents’ votes with some formula. Of course, starting the inalienable suffrage right at the default value of one, the point is, if we want to improve that value by taking a test on this knowledge which is basic, accessible to anyone, available to be taken every year, simpler than a traffic regulation and way less dense than a scripture. Every eligible constituent could try to pass the exam now and then and, depending on the mark achieved, the formula would start to work out its vote value:
As of this moment, constituents would have to fight or rather study, to improve the value of their votes. The over or underrepresentation stated by such or such electoral law is debatable and is subject to consensus, but the representation of the power of the premium value a voter might get, it is only up to the individual’s effort. And hereafter, a system would lie where the oblivious, unconcerned or sidetracked, the common man, the layman, ignorant, or “idiot'' might choose to continue being so at their own discretion. They’re free to do so. But at least, they will know that the door is open to take “the test” and improve their power in the polis. Or they may lay back comfortably and let some of us, who feel a bit more concerned, obtain and exert a power which may even double their strength.
In summary, the value of your vote is an issue in which there is a conflict between idiots and zoons politikons; the former neglecting and the latter caring for. If Francis Bacon said “knowledge is power”, couldn’t this be one more step?
Bibliography
What is the value of your vote? - Daily Times
Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle
Considerations on Representative Government, John Stuart Mill
Image thanks to free stock https://stock.adobe.com/
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario