Karl,
How do I decide ? ... with great difficulty and long debate, and using
value judgements, and a wise basis for such judgements, and checks and
balances in case we get a judgement wrong, etc, etc ... (freedom and
democray as I've said many times already.)
If you want me to guess / speculate ... as if it was my decision ...
then let's have a go ... But ...
Firstly if you cannot accept (as reasonably true) that
"not everyone's vote need have the same value"
We have a problem to start with.
I used the word not / need (necessarily) / same
You seem to be saying that
"Everyone's vote must necessarily have the same value, always, in
every situation, etc" (ie the words all / must / every)
Before we even get into the difficult value judgements, I say that's a
preposterous position as a matter of reason and simple logic. So
absolute as to very unlikely true - fact or value judgement. Zero
exceptions ? Surely not.
People must qualify to have a vote - membership of relevant
constituencies, be of "sound mind and body", not serving a felony
conviction, whatever, things like that. Situation normal.
Some votes, referenda, etc will have limited voting constituencies and
levels of "representation" ... so we cannot all vote for a high-court
judge, that's a job for some electoral college (of "qualified"
people), but we can vote for "representatives", sometimes we can even
vote directly on issues, sometimes those (popular referenda) votes are
binding decisions (but the again, very rarely - someone usually has
superior decsion-making rights).
Some issues will be referenda for individual popular (constituency)
voting, others will be voted on by our representatives on our behalf.
Some or all our representatives maye have different and longer /
shorter terms of office and periods and mechanisms of accountability.
Some may be kicked out as soon as they make an "unpopular" decision.
Some may survive until the next "election" and get te benefit of a
weighted average of the value of their decisions over that term, and
so on. (And there will be codes of "moral" conduct that may over-ride
even these.) Layer upon layer of values already.
Not everyone's vote counts the same in every vote.
Can we agree thus far ?
Now ... what about a fair and safe basis for giving the "wise" more
say, more authority at key places in the multi-layered processes of
governance .... ?
Next time maybe ?
Ian
On 3/1/07, Karl Rogers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Good. That is much better. We certainly can keep talking.
>
> But, regardless of the semantics about the use of the word "fact", etc., you
> said that
>
> "The brutal fact is not everyone's vote need have the same value."
>
> Now I accept that it is a fact that this is a value judgement. I also accept
> that it is a fact that some things are of more value than others for
> different people. But what I do not accept is a fact is that not everyone's
> vote need have the same value. This is not a fact. It is a value judgement
> and a contentious one at that. I wanted you to explain your basis for that
> value judgement.
>
> But, moving on.... How do you decide whose vote carries greater weight than
> others'?
>
> Karl.
>
>
> ________________________________
> The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from
> your Internet provider.
>
>
|