I am about as apolitical as you can get, but I enjoy watching politics because it is more absurd theatre than anything else.
Most countries that allow voting and display a modicum of democratic election principles also use the one person, one vote rule. Each eligible voter gets one vote per election.
Election fraud occurs here and there but historically has been less of an issue than recently.
I once talked to someone who advocated against the one person, one vote rule.
He insisted that people are not as smart as they think they are and waste their votes on candidates unworthy of consideration for any elected office. A vote by a voter with less understanding of politics and how government should run is wasted when compared to a vote by an intelligent and well educated voter.
In essence, one person, one vote has not worked well.
He advocated a three vote system.
- People who were both smart and well educated would get three votes.
- People of less intellect and educations would get two votes.
- Less than average people with severely limited intellect and less than all but the basic education would get a single vote.
That may not seem fair but it makes sense.
Look at what has happened in recent national elections in the U.S. In 2000 the candidate that lost received the most votes. That happened again in 2016.
Whatever happened to elections where the winner is the candidate who received the most votes?
Think about it.
One person, one vote means very smart and well educated people have the same value to the election as people who do not understand much about the quality of those who should be governing.
A genius has the same value as an idiot. That might explain political advertising. Idiots are more gullible.
Humans being what they are we could expect some perversion of the testing and qualification process for each voter, but there’s little that’s new about trying to game the system.
One person, not one vote?