Objections
― 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
according
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,
then
he needs merely to
show interest
in the subject, to
study it, and to
acquire knowledge
about it.
Otherwise,
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
discussion.
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.
But
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?