Meritocracy v democracy...

I have been struggling with this one, it has to be said.

As a strong supporter of a meritocratic system, and also of the inalienable rights of people, it raises conflicting issues.

Ones that have made me think - and go - outside the box.
(which is probably required to square this particular circle).

All people are born equal, and from then on, inequalities are a part of life. For everyone.
That's the way it is, and no wishful thinking will ever change that.

The question of 'equality' when it comes to voting is as silly as thinking equality exists. If there is no equality in anything, then why so with voting?
It's illogical.

And we most definitely want to of stay in the world of logic to make things better.

What would make far more logical sense, is weighted voting. Weighted voting that encourages the people who are succeeding in life to carry the most weight as to which direction a country proceeds.

Money itself is a blunt tool and ripe for manipulation, so is not a good barometer.

Meritocracy has to be defined first, to be applied, as does 'success'.

Wealth accumulation is not success.
It can be a part of it, of course -for sure- but not the whole picture.
(A lottery winner does not suddenly gain more weight of voting because of wealth accumulation for example.)

...meritocracy can refer to any form of evaluation based on achievement.

These arguments will have more holes in them than Swiss cheese, I am not formulating them too much - It is the discussion that is important, not the solvency of my specific model..

Here is my personal take on it, feel free to add to, and point out inconsistencies, and downright stupidity of course. ..

A meritocratic system is based on success....

Success needs to be defined.

Success as a human being , means freedom to be. Freedom has to be debt free, to qualify.
People who are debt free, should carry the most weight in how a society is to be run.

People in debt are not living in the society we want now. Debt is borrowing from the future, and as such decisions of voting is influenced by that.
I think this is a very subtle, but powerful reason to restrict the voting weight of people in debt.

We need to define debt then, of course.
Mortgage is debt.
Loans are debt.
Credit cards etc.

This my seem a harsh way to look at it, but if you think about it- by applying these terms as 'debt', it means the voting patterns and changes will be conservative, and most importantly...slow.
The brakes of change will be applied, which is one of the worst problems we suffer from now.

Change is great and to be encouraged on the individual level, but just as with socialism working perfectly well on a smaller scale, ( being unable to scale up) - the same with politics.
It should be a slow moving leviathan. It leads to stability, and endurance.

The meritocratic voting weighting system encourages the stability of 'the now'. The successful people of today(yesteryear), are the decision makers.
The odds are that those decision makers will be voting using the knowledge that got them to where they, applied.

This allows for capitalism to flourish - and these successful individuals using the tools of capitalism (debt), will be rewarded with more voting weight.
BUT only once they are debt free - until then, they are restricted in their voting power.

The successful people gain more voting power, while the unsuccessful do not.

This system allows for people to strive for more voting power. It is not fixed or exclusive to anyone.

The stupid rich are penalized.
You can have wealth, but in a generation or two, and some stupid decisions and debt - you will only have as much power as some individual starting out in life as an adult.

Inherited wealth (say your net worth at 20 yrs old), carries NO extra weight. (Inherited wealth has a zero rating if you will).
Buying a house with that wealth, will give you a positive rating..kind of, I think... It's all a bit blurry...
All government employees or beneficiaries of government money should have minimal voting power, if any - it is not logical to vote for a system you are being paid by.

A points system of voting weight can be calibrated (by people far more intelligent than myself).

So who would carry the most weight in this system?

Debt free property owners.
This would allow for weight to be shifted to the older generations. (wisdom doesn't come through technology, but experience, no matter how much we wish it not to be so, when we are younger.)

So, just throwing these out there...

Points for age - the older you are, the more say you have...wisdom and all that.
Points for lack of debt (sliding scales? - I dunno- I'm not writing the whole bloody thesis!)
Points for the number of people you employ...?

Meritocracy has to be seen as more than just accumulated wealth or property for a political system based on it , to work..
Meritocracy has to be seen as successful in life , not just material gain.

For example - an individual who has his own property, who is not rich, but owns all he has- is more trustworthy a person to decide futures of nations than the multimillionaire (on paper), who is in debt up to his eyeballs, hoping for his ship to come in, one day...
The meritocratic perspective needs to be evaluated, to ensure that the individual who owns what he has, is always more influential in politics, than the debt based 'millionaire'.

Stability is key to a successful enduring society, and a weighted meritocratic system of voting has to be the best way to achieve that.

Letting brain dead morons have as much say in a future of anything - much less a country- is - when you really think about it, a recipe for disaster..

Democracy - as we know it today - is actually quite ridiculous.
...And the road to communism, as Marx pointed out. (he was lazy, not stupid).