But in this way isn't the basic democratic principle,
the principle of equality, being ignored?

          Aren't the citizens being divided into two
categories, first and second class?

No, that's not true.

The test doesn't characterise
the citizen as a whole, but
only the weight of his opinion


to his interest and
his knowledge about

the specific question.

       I'm so sure about the correctness of my views,
that I don't give anyone the right to check if my
opinion carries weight or not.

          I don't accept to take the test.

Very well.

Give your vote without the test.
It will have the basic weight factor 1.

Every citizen

has the right to
express his opinion.

Does he want his opinion to carry weight,


he needs merely to show interest
in the subject, to study it, and to
acquire knowledge

about it.


if he has no interest and no
knowledge about the problem,

he cannot demand that his opinion
is considered very seriously.

The issue to be decided on
is announced a week earlier

(if it is something more serious, two weeks),

in order to give people time to do research,
to get information and to discuss it

     over the Internet,

     in the circle of their friends or

     in their working environment.

There would be a television channel

that broadcasts only information,
opinions and discussions on the topic.

Every citizen

has the opportunity to present his thoughts,
his views or his proposal to solve the problem

in a special website.

       In this way, thousands of thoughts
and suggestions will be collected.

          How will we know whether there is
something serious and useful among them? 

          Should the government use "commissions of the wise"
to evaluate them?

No, that wouldn't be democratic.

The choice must be made by
the people themselves.

Those who read these opinions 

can note down next to it whether
they agree with it.

The opinions and suggestions of citizens

are classified according to the
degree of their acceptance.

The more "likes" a proposal gets,
the higher its classification.

This allows everyone

to see which proposal
has what impact.

If the number of "likes"

for a proposal reaches a tenth
of the total number of the electorate,

the government is obliged

to put this proposal
to the general vote.

Our goal

is to find the best solution
 to the problem, and we
achieve this through


We do not want

to settle the question
as quickly as possible

by putting it to the vote.

The view of a poorly informed majority
does not guarantee that we
have found the best solution.


       And who gives you the right to judge
whether my opinion is considered
more or less seriously?

The fact

that by your decision you're going to affect
my life and the life of my brother and my son.

If it only

affected your life, and you
decided to jump over the cliff,

I would run beside you,

and try to convince you

not to.

I wouldn't have the
right to forbid you.


if you wanted to jump over
the cliff taking my son with you,

that I would forbid.

When it comes to piloting an aircraft,

we require that the one who
makes the decision is an expert.

He must have proven his ability

by obtaining a pilot's license.

Is what we are applying so far to
the system of government, right?

As it is not simply

about guiding an aircraft,
but guiding the entire state,

should the vote of

     the most ignorant,

     the most indifferent,

     the most uninformed,

     the most superficial

be as strong as the vote of

     the most interested and
informed specialist?

Does this system with the votes of equal
gravity ensure that our decisions are correct?

Hasn't this happened
to us so many times,

that citizens have made
disastrous decisions,
enticed by the promises
of capable demagogues?

Would you board a plane piloted by
someone who has no idea about flying?

Back                                  Contents                                Continue