Wednesday, January 14, 2009

The Multiple Vote

Sometimes even wing nuts have a good idea: The multiple vote reform proposal recognizes, at least implicitly, that the chief drawback of democracy is that every moron gets an equal vote. Thus, this innovative approach gives multiple votes to productive and responsible individuals.

As a first principle, a multiple vote system in 21st century America should be designed to favor those who have put forth the greatest effort to be economically self-sufficient, and those who contribute most to society. In other words, those who have demonstrated that they understand the importance of making good choices in their lives would be rewarded. Just as a suggestion, a new American voting system might confer additional votes to all those of voting age, as follows:

And that's where the ground drops from under the wing nut.

"One additional vote for those with a college degree and/or active duty military service."

Hmm… An effort at bipartisanship or just plain thoughtlessness? After all, colleges are dominated by liberals. Well, who cares, at least it's one more vote for me.

"One additional vote for those with 20 years or more of demonstrated voluntary civilian service to church, community, state, or nation."

Now the true fundie spirit shines shit stinks through. Rewarding mystics for becoming witch doctors? And what about the latter half? Rewarding each and every bureaucrat and politician, no matter how corrupt?

"One additional vote for individuals who have raised at least one child to age 16 without being divorced."

Hmm… He doesn't mention all those enlightened folks who raise their kids without ever marrying. So it must be OK with him. If never marrying is OK, why then is he against divorce?

He probably can't even imagine that kids are ever born out of wedlock! Looks like that fundie would have to be more enlightened to be unenlightened.

Now for the hard part: What means raising? Shouldn't there be some success test? Or should anybody who shits out a baby and doesn't file for divorce for sixteen years be rewarded with another vote, even if she raises her kid to become a serial killer?

"One additional vote for those without a felony criminal record."

Again, nice in theory. But that would require a justice system that makes a credible effort to discover the truth instead of hunting scapegoats. Remember the West Memphis Three? And it would require a justice system that does not treat things like drug dealing and tax evasion as felonies.

"One additional vote for those who own their principal place of residence, mortgage free."

So why not cut through the red tape and simply introduce plutocracy? The more productive the individual, the higher the income, the more votes. There would be the problem of worthless heirs, but that could be addressed.

Look, for example, at The Donald. I used to admire him, but he's a textbook case of the Wynand syndrome: I still admire his work, but since I started reading his blog and got to know his petty and often borderline-irrational personality, I don't care much for him as a person anymore.

Nevertheless, even an average-to-bad capitalist like The Donald would be a billion times better at running a country than your average Obamabot or Palin disciple. (And I know some. I wish I would not.)

In any event, the multiple vote would be an important first step on the road towards anarcho-capitalism. Unlike anarcho-capitalism, however, state plutocracy does not address the problems inherent in the monopoly government's claim to exclusivity: No competition and an inherent mysticism.

In other words, vigilantes, even if they punish the right criminal justly, would still be persecuted just for not being the government. And government would continue to be a Hegelian juggernaut, instead of just another utility: People would still be ready to murder and to sacrifice their lives for the state, something they would never do for a non-mystical, corporate, private utility.

But I digress. If you want to know more about solving the problem of worthless heirs and minarchy versus anarchy, you'll have to wait for my next book, Mystic Triangle. And now back to our regularly scheduled programming:

Can it ever happen? Probably not… at least not so long as liberals control the White House and/or hold majorities in at least one house of Congress. It is precisely the under-educated, the uninformed, and the indifferent voters, and those who can be convinced that they are in some way "victims" of all the rest of us, who are essential to liberal success at the polls.

And here the wing nut mudslinging, predictably, goes off the scale. Need I mention college liberals again? Need I mention that many, like drug offenders, are indeed victimized by the fascist man?

So if you want to know the politics of friends or relatives who say they never discuss politics or religion, there's an easy way to find out. Just run this idea up the flag pole. If they salute it, they're probably conservatives; if they try to shoot it down, they're probably liberals.

Nice try, buster. I agree with the idea of the multiple vote, but I'm no conservative. You probably never heard the word libertarian?

No comments: