Democracy is a concept that evokes deep respect. It is something sacrosanct. It has a missionary quality when set against other forms of civil society such as the Islamic theocracy or ex-communist regimes. It is true that no other form of civil society in history has been more successful than the democratic society, despite of all its shortcomings. Or to quote English statesman Sir Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all those other forms, that have been tried from time to time." In the eyes of the aristocratic-minded ancient Athenians there was a negative aspect to this form of government: it meant that they had to share power with the plebeians, who were considered to be barbaric in the eyes of Aristotle. Apart from one or two grass-root attempts, democracy did not develop further until the French Revolution, after which it gradually spread to other countries in the western world. Democracy prevailed because it is based on the principles of equality and freedom, and brought the right to vote and basic human rights to every citizen. But at least as important is that it provided a set of rules which, while allowing individuals to benefit from it, ensures that it is also for the common good. At the same time it taught citizens to live by the altruistic principle of showing consideration for others' interests and that it is generally better to be prepared to make compromises. But also, democracy was able to keep corruption among those who govern within more or less tolerable limits, because it is the only form of state government which provides for governmental representatives to be voted out of office, which serves as a threat to them.

So far, so good? Not so fast. It appears that democracy is becoming too “successful”. It has produced a complex bureaucratic system which is unprecedented in political history. There are many reasons for this, some are comprehensible, others are not. Basically, democracy, or rather our democratic State, has turned into a huge welfare state, serving the interests of many pressure groups. The more successful the system is proving to be, the more these groups are demanding. Except, the power of an independent Parliament is at stake, when the parties “order” and discipline dominates.

This can result in absurdities like the governments' subsidizing policies, or a tax system which is so complex that citizens have to admit feeling incompetent when it comes to filling out a tax return. As a consequence, more and more people lose interest in politics: those who, unable or unwilling to comprehend, seek primitive solutions which often result in an inflated, nationalistic ego; or those who, while realizing how the system works, find that they are powerless because they are unable to bring their influence to bear. The cooperative intelligence of the parliament, plus the power of the bureaucratic “lords”, plus the parties demands turned Democracy into a “Democratur”.
Numerous attempts have been made to help out democracy in some ways: by reforming the federal system, cutting subsidies, creating some new undersecretary's slot or a new ministerial post. It does make sense to improve democracy by reforming institutions and the way benefits and subsidies are redistributed, and to create, if possible, a fairer and simpler system. Call for more popular participation, but would it not also make sense to take another, more basic, evolutional approach to reform this form of society - seeing that no better system exists - by looking at the electorate?

Those democrats who feel strongly about equality will gasp because they sense danger. For to them it is clear: all persons are equal. ‘One Man , One Vote’. This is an unalterable principle, and it is totally reasonable. But is it?
Within the democratic system as it exists, now, an illiterate hooligan who will nearly always resort to violence and who cultivates a crude, intolerant nationalism has the same voting rights as a sensitive, educated woman who engages in charity work. Should the vote of a benefit fraudster, whose only interest consists in lining his own pocket, count as much as the vote of a man who generously contributes to charitable causes? If a weighted voting system was installed, would it not possibly lead to a sustainable improvement of the state? Would it not be legitimate to grant more influence to those who actively contribute to society and who, because they are better educated, are more able to understand complex concepts, by adjusting the significance of their vote, attaching more weight to it? We are not pleading in favour of an understanding of a social system which is divorced from reality. However, the quality of a democracy depends to the highest degree on the level of education attained by its citizens and on their active participation. Remember John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873)!?

But that is not the only reason why it is worthwhile reading the following ideas of the Project GlobalVoter, and spreading them in the mainstream society.
 

We will not get better politicians, if we are not prepared to become better voters!

To be a better, more educated and more socially involved citizen, GlobalVoter developed a simple and evolutional plan, which is based on compensation and consequently growing responsibility and fellow attitude within the democratic society.Each voter can achieve between one (1x) and up to ten (10x) vote in his lifetime:

1. Each citizen, from 18 years on, will exercise 1x vote, which he is, so to say, born with.
2. As a result of education, i.e. intelligence, hard work and his/her own economical independent effort, each citizen can obtain three (3x) extra votes during his/her life, as an immutable rule:
   2.1  1x vote after primary/secondary school leaving certification
   2.2  1x vote after obtaining a degree or other professional qualification of the second educational system or a master craftsman’s diploma or similar.
   2.3  1x vote after obtaining an academic title in university, an MBA or PHD or proves several years of freelance status after a second educational system study or master craftsman’s diploma or similar.
3. As a result of social work, human concern and/or charity during one’s lifetime each citizen can obtain another three (3x) extra votes in a stable, simple procedure.
   3.1  1x vote for participation, involvement in public bodies, parties, associations, foundations, welfare institutions, etc., etc. Substantiated and active over 10 years.
   3.2  1x vote for the same participation for another 10 years, altogether 20 years.
   3.3  1x vote for the same participation for another 10 years, altogether 30 years.
4. As a result of allocation of up to 3x votes to a voter by third-party fellow democrats or citizens forums/councils (Preferable for different reason’s) in recognition of all kinds of outstanding social achievements, to be defined, during the course of activities as a responsible, social-democratic behaviour, any citizen can achieve 3x other votes/awards. Remark: Maybe, someone like Bill Gates has an edge on this, but Mother Teresa will certainly also achieve three honourable votes!

Cyber Democracy and Direct Democracy are the essential tools for the New Democracy to grow. But no singular domination, as to the costs and time involved. Consequently, GlobalVoter’s proposal is a feasible mixed approach/system of representative and direct democracy, but, which returns “dignity” to the  people’s pursuit of power.The internet provides a unique chance: No discrimination, no differential of race, age, religion, sex, income, political or economical power, as “relatively “no, as it never has been! Note: You can not inherit those votes.
We would turn around to a new society, with new human purposes. Power to the qualified, good people, first and then, by doing, turn this a successful model to all of the citizens. Of course, if, may be, we start with 20% of the voting crowd dominating 80% of the votes, we have to protect minorities with differential quotes, as 90% or more on some basic human rights. On the long run, however, we will achieve quite a high number of multiple voters. Equality, on another level. A long term proposition, which would provide a chance to upgrade politics and would bring the better citizen back to leadership. Politicians rise in income should be looked at, the voters efforts, above some level, could be compensated!? Transparency has to be achieved by online democratic controls of taxes and its spendings. We do not accept: Big Brother is watching you. YOU watch Big Brother!

A GlobalVoter does not vote each four years, they’ll vote every day! In the beginning, we want just to act democratically, by excellence, being an example to political society, promoting the better decisions and becoming the “watch-dog” of representative democracy, headlining  the big media. Since the “The Climate Challenge”, we all learned, we have to change attitude! Our society, our Democracy, also will need to change. Any system, which leads to global understanding and transparency, social justice and intelligent, socially concerned leaders will be the WINNER! We mean real money! Nothing would pay back, in the next 10 years, better, than apply qualified, transparent, human common sense intelligence on government spending.

References