Democracy Sucks: Let’s Return To contributor Voting
The main problem with democracy is that the highly educated business owner that employs hundreds of people while also providing for a wife and five kids has the same voting rights as a heroin addicted eighteen-year-old that dropped out in middle school.
Direct Democracy is Terrible. It always has been.
Think about that for a second. These people elect the most powerful man in the world.
But why not aim for a better rule by majority? Rather than the rule by the historically illiterate, welfare-dependent majority?
Rule by a contributor majority. Contributor voting. Kind of like how the original intention of voting was in the United States in the first place.
It was never meant to be an open democratic system. Look up the words of our founding fathers. They hated democracy. That’s why we’re a republic.
We could create a better republic-type system with contributor voting. Contributor voting could still give everyone access to voting, albeit with some much needed changes to the current system.
It would not be hard to do. All we would need to do is the following:
- Set up voting units.
- Set up a proper federal income tax system.
- Require a voting ID and political test to get accepted to the voting unit.
- Alter the voting percents per voting unit.
Where the voting units have a certain hierarchy, that determines which unit an individual should be placed in. Also, where the federal income tax system is utilized in such a way to only allow (roughly) the top 50% of income earners to pay any federal income tax at all, and thus be a net taxpayer. (This serves the added benefit of requiring the government to acquire tax revenues through other means than strictly income).
This net taxpayer unit (contributor) would then have a higher percentage of the vote compared to the general (open) unit. The other units would also have a higher percentage per cap compared to the general unit. These units could encompass such groups as a defense unit, a business unit, and a politician unit.
Voter ID and political testing would give a bare minimum requirement to vote and ensure the voting units percentage add up to the amount of individuals registered.
Then these different units would have a different percentage amount of the vote.
Let’s do an example.
contributor Voting: An Example
Let’s say we have 5 units: general, contributor, politician, defense, and business.
Now let’s say each of these groups has the following voting unit percentage of the vote: defense at 5%, political at 5%, business at 20%, contributor at 50%, and general at 20%.
Consider the voting age population at 250 million. About 5.5 million would fall into the defense category (based on military, police, and related). This is about 2% of the population, but through the contributor system they get 5% of the vote. Their vote is worth nearly double for their sacrifice to the country.
Now the political unit, or the “aristocrats”, which Plato so heavily favored. We already have a special system for our politicians so they won’t be trash like modern ones. They are few (local, state, and fed maybe make up 500k) but get 5% of the vote. This is still reasonable because of the small overall percentage (5%) and the fact that they are the majority of political players.
Next, business. There are about 30 mil small businesses in the US. This would account for 12% of the voting age population. Thus, the business owners also get nearly twice the say at 20%.
Next, we chop up the total into two groups: contributors get 125 million and general get 125 million. However, all the above units need to be removed from their respective groups. We’ll estimate 99,500,000 total for contributors and 115 million general voters.
Through these calculations, we can see that contributors would roughly account for 39.8% of the population. Yet we give them 50% of the vote. This works very well: they are slightly above par with their vote. Defense, political, and business each get a slight bit more as a percentage return, but the contributors are not harmed in any way.
We are left with the general unit. They were calculated as 46% of the vote. However, they only receive 20% of the vote. This drives down the potential for mob-rule and welfare-dependent majority voting.
This is just one example of how it could work. We could give more voting percentage to contributors and take away some from other groups, or vice versa. We could knock the general voting group down to 10% even. Really, the contributor voting system could work however we want it.
For use on all levels of government, it would likely require a weighting system instead of a boxed approach.
We could even consider removing the political group entirely for only a DBSE setup. Really, the options are endless. Whatever method we would use would still be better than a direct democratic approach.
A Better Result
The only catch is the system would need to be constitutionalized and protected against change. Otherwise, it would fail over time as the units voted to give more power to the “general” unit.
This framework gives the benefits of aristocracy and republic voting without the downsides of democracy.
Contributor voting > Democracy
If we’re fighting for a new government, let’s make sure we make it right next time.
Next time, let’s use contributor voting.
If you enjoyed this article, give us a bookmark and check back often for new content. New articles every weekday.
Help fight the censorship – Share this article!
Finally, please consider supporting my work. Every donation is immensely helpful to cover monthly costs.