Originally Posted by Dante

Yes, it's offtopic, but i'mma answer this.

In my (theoretical) governmental system you can only vote on things for which you have an informed opinion. This stops morons swamping the polls and the kind of simplistic targeted campaigning (read: Propaganda) we see in today's systems.

I'll use the Treasury/Economics Minister as an example, now this guy and his department deal with all the taxation/budgets etc. but at least under the UK system it's high ranking politicians which get this job, not necessarily those experienced in the field (e.g. the Shadow Chancellor in the UK at the moment used to be the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and the current Chancellor has a degree in Modern History). Under my system only those who were properly qualified would be allowed to run for this position, i'm not sure exactly on how I define "qualified" but i'm toying with the idea of either a publish, peer-reviewed research paper or, more simply, a formal qualification like a degree.

So only people with these qualifications can run for the job, but more importantly, only people with similar qualifications can vote on it. That way people who understand the real issues make the calls, not members of the public with simplified or incorrect viewpoints. So each department is run by a committee of qualified, peer-assessed individuals and led by one who is the most popular amongst them.

There are no national elections, there is no universal suffrage on any matter. You may only vote on that which you are qualified to. Yes, it's unfair, yes it's unrepresentative, but I believe it to be as close to a meritocracy as possible.

Originally Posted by Dante

Yes, it's offtopic, but i'mma answer this.

In my (theoretical) governmental system you can only vote on things for which you have an informed opinion. This stops morons swamping the polls and the kind of simplistic targeted campaigning (read: Propaganda) we see in today's systems.

I'll use the Treasury/Economics Minister as an example, now this guy and his department deal with all the taxation/budgets etc. but at least under the UK system it's high ranking politicians which get this job, not necessarily those experienced in the field (e.g. the Shadow Chancellor in the UK at the moment used to be the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and the current Chancellor has a degree in Modern History). Under my system only those who were properly qualified would be allowed to run for this position, i'm not sure exactly on how I define "qualified" but i'm toying with the idea of either a publish, peer-reviewed research paper or, more simply, a formal qualification like a degree.

So only people with these qualifications can run for the job, but more importantly, only people with similar qualifications can vote on it. That way people who understand the real issues make the calls, not members of the public with simplified or incorrect viewpoints. So each department is run by a committee of qualified, peer-assessed individuals and led by one who is the most popular amongst them.

There are no national elections, there is no universal suffrage on any matter. You may only vote on that which you are qualified to. Yes, it's unfair, yes it's unrepresentative, but I believe it to be as close to a meritocracy as possible.