in this way isn't the basic democratic principle,
the principle of equality, being ignored?
Aren't the citizens being divided into
categories, first and second class?
No, that's not true.
test doesn't characterise
the citizen as a whole, but
only the weight of his opinion
to his interest
his knowledge about
the specific question.
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.
Give your vote
without the test.
It will have the basic weight factor 1.
has the right to
express his opinion.
Does he want his opinion to carry weight,
he needs merely to
in the subject, to study it, and to
if he has no
interest and no
knowledge about the problem,
cannot demand that his opinion
is considered very seriously.
The issue to be
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
<![if !supportLists]>• <![endif]>over the Internet,
<![if !supportLists]>• <![endif]>in the circle of their friends or
<![if !supportLists]>• <![endif]>in their working environment.
There would be a television channel
opinions and discussions on the topic.
opportunity to present his thoughts,
his views or his proposal to solve the problem
in a special website.
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
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
according to the
degree of their acceptance.
more "likes" a proposal gets,
the higher its classification.
This allows everyone
to see which
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.
is to find the
to the problem, and we
achieve this through
We do not want
to settle the
as quickly as possible
by putting it to the vote.
view of a poorly informed majority
does not guarantee that we
have found the best solution.
who gives you the right to judge
whether my opinion is considered
more or less seriously?
that by your
decision you're going to affect
my life and the life of my brother and my son.
If it only
life, and you
decided to jump over the cliff,
I would run beside you,
and try to convince you
I wouldn't have
right to forbid you.
if you wanted to
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
but guiding the entire state,
should the vote of
<![if !supportLists]>• <![endif]>the most ignorant,
<![if !supportLists]>• <![endif]>the most indifferent,
<![if !supportLists]>• <![endif]>the most uninformed,
<![if !supportLists]>• <![endif]>the most superficial
be as strong as the vote of
most interested and
Does this system
with the votes of equal
gravity ensure that our decisions are correct?
to us so many times,
that citizens have
enticed by the promises
of capable demagogues?
Would you board a
plane piloted by
someone who has no idea about flying?