Some may see this as a way to discriminate against people or enforce elitism, but it does make some sense: We’re all different - some are more capable of making good decisions than others. Some people are smarter or better informed than others. The people I’ve talked to about this matter over the course of my life usually shared the same opinion - that, in general, meritocratic voting would improve the electoral process.
This process would actually require anonymity in voting because someone’s personal abilities would be publicly revealed, and I guess that’s what makes it unacceptable. Is this this idea in conflict with current Constitution?
I know it’s very challenging to implement something like this in the form of a law and in technical sense. It’s a very complex subject, but I do think many people have already considered it. I would just like to hear different opinions about this subject.
Probably Liberland is the easiest jurisdiction among them all to implement policy such as this. We’re online, we’re blockchain and we’re small.
I don’t think that’s right.
Human rights are human rights, smart or stupid.
Yes. There are certain organisations, like Tests | Mensa Switzerland.
They’re where people test themselves, their knowledge.
They find each other with common interests and move on from there.
My IQ test was 126.
There are people with higher and lower scores and it’s normal and everyone has the same rights and the same vote.
That’s my opinion.
Wheighting vote in Liberland is based on your politipool stacked LL merits. (so like a big company), and not by head. As said Andrii, rights are for smart and stupid. I know a guy with serious mental problem in institution, but with an IQ of 180. So i dont think it will be a good idea. also it will be difficult to proove if the citizen really made the test by himself. Also anonymity is a complicate subject with blockchain vote. the best way is to “hide” your real identity as anonymous. otherwise, as all is online, without any assessor, some can think, without any detail of the vote, that can be faked without any proof. We can change our display name linked to our citizen account (but only once).
Good point, we’re already meritocratic in some sense.
But in the end, mental illness and high IQ is not that much frequent case, besides, I would forbid voting to mentally ill people, no matter how smart they are.
I say again, this subject is very controversial and tough to discuss without some proper research on whether such thing would be feesible for running the country.
As noted in the replies testing people to modify their vote weighting is fraught with problems. I have implemented a system which is still evolving for a family office where each proposal is voted on without a yes/no ballot. Each voter is asked a standardized series of yes/no questions about impacts and compliance with the family values, constitution, ethics, etc where each question is weighted with a points value. Negative answers are negative points, yes answers get positive points but points are standardized based on the degree of importance to family impacts. There is a final question where the voter does vote yes or no according to their own desires that has a lower point value. Whether their vote becomes a yea or nay to the proposal depends on whether it passes a standardized threshold point value. Takes some time to set up but works quite well. In the family we audit the answers by a family council to ensure against bias but LIberland could actually take the answers to the questions and normalize them based on whether the majority agrees as to specific impacts (negative or positive) using an algorithm which can minimize voting bias due to poor understanding, poor judgement, personal agendas, etc. Something to think about as a model going forward. Yes/No votes alone, given time will eventually cause accelerating entropic growth of any organization as can be witnessed in todays world followed by failure.