I am reluctant to give up the simple principle of "one-man-one-vote" which has always underlined democracy (rule by the people), but the inescapable conclusion that one comes to when faced with the psychotic majority is that "one-man-one-vote" must be replaced by "one-homo-sapiens-one-vote". How do we define "homo sapiens"? What we don't want is that a self-selected elite decides that it is the only guardian of wisdom and therefore power. So, although it will be necessary to differentiate between wise and psychotic people, it mustn't be done without a consensus of what constitutes a valid voter (homo sapiens). Indeed the differentiation need not be permanently demarking and could be adjusted in real time to accommodate increasing wisdom. Could not the voting milieu be treated as an educational forum? As one's vote becomes wiser (a judgement arrived at by consensual criteria) so one's vote weighting increases?
Previous Home