Democrazy.. what's your opinion about it?

These days, everyone loves democracy. Everyone should have the right to vote and to be voted for. But does the concept of democracy really need everyone to be functional? History tells a different story. For the longest time, democratic votes were limited to men. In Switzerland the last canton introduced the vote for women one generation ago. And before that? Only men were allowed to vote in the sense of one man being the head of one family.

In ancient Greece and other places throughout history like the free German cities of the mideaval time, it was only men too, who were allowed to vote. Again in the sense of head of the familiy. Impart there were restrictions that you needed to own land or in Athens provide the city with defense capabilities. Men who wanted to vote had to buy their own military gear and men (and also women!) who wanted to become elected officials had to collect money and buy defense materials for their city.

For the most time during the first empire, German Kaisers were not born into their status, but elected by a body of important kings and other royalty who owned large swaths of land. And later and not just in Germany, there were democratic elections where men had prove they had a certain income to be allowed to vote and how much your vote counted. Elected officials on the other side were parted into their background of common men, royalty and clerus and each had their share of representatives.

If you think now, the least damage is done when everyone is allowed to vote, here are some examples showing the opposite:

1. The vote over German war loans for WW1, the Social Democrat party (back then much more left than today) voted unanimous in favor of them with only one notable exception: Karl Liebknecht (nephew of Karl Marx).

2. The first Egyptian parliament after the fall of Mubarak which put in charge the Islamo-Fascist Muslim Brotherhood.

3. The vote for the second Iraq war by the US Congress. Opposition was drowned in blind patriotism.

4. The vote for the financial baiouts by the US Congress and independently the German Bundestag. A move in which the German parliament gave up its fiscal authority indefinitely to an unelected supranational body.

5. The election of Silvio Berlusconi as PM of Italy, despite everyone knowing his shady background.

6. The late Athenian democracy with the broadest electoral body in its history (pretty much everyone was allowed to vote), which imposed dictatorial fiscal rules over the wealthy, ruining the financial system and thus destroying the fundamnetals of its own culture by making it cheaper for the wealthy to favor dictators.

The full list is very long. As Platon (and later Cicero) stated more than 2000 years ago, democracy is only one of several solutions. Thy all tend to have a best before date after which a new form of government is bound to take over.

What is really important for the democratic process

As described above, history shows there are all sorts of thresholds possible to extend the life-expectancy of democracy. As long as they ultimately have a majority rule, you can call them democratic. The important part - the one that makes the system successful - is not defined by the question whether everyone is allowed to vote. The central questions are much more:

1) if relevant stake holders in the society are represented appropriately (speak: relative to their importance) among the electorate and

2) if the elected body represents the important fractions of interest of the society.

These two conditions are directly contradictive to the claim that things are best when everyone has a vote. Sometimes, this may be the case, but I would argue this only to be relevant in societies with a very high homogenity on the level of cultural, educational and wealth. This is something you can almost only find in small places. The larger the entity, the bigger the spectrum of the population, the smaller their common denominator and thus the more important becomes balancing the real present and future stakes of a society within its electoral body and its elected bodies.

But even if you balance out the stake holders and their relative share within the democratic process, things can go wrong. Look at the Vaticans latest election sample named Bergoglio for example. It looks just like you can penetrate literally anything. That's why, when looking at the best democratic practice, I don't think we should look at it with the question in mind how we have to shape it to make sure it always goes well, but much more with the question of how possible damage caused by the process can be limited.

My solution would be as in the image:

- Give families with dependend children one vote, because they contribute to the future of society.

- Give tax payers one vote, because they contribute to the present society.

.. but what if a family member is also a tax payer?

Then two votes are justified.

.. but what if I'd like to vote but have neither a family nor do I pay taxes?

Well, then engage in political debates with voters or pay taxes or start a family.

.. but is there also a rule for getting elected?

Nope, everyone should be allowed to get voted into office, because it's important to get the most competent, even if they are neither paying taxes, nor have a family.

.. but how does this fix our problems?

While families want the best service for their children, tax payers want a small tax bill. Since both fractions are equally big, their interests balance themselves out.

.. and otherwise nobody should be allowed to vote?

35% of the population has dependend children and 35% of the population pays individual taxes. Even if you consider candidates where both applies, that's still a lot.

.. but what is with other valuable members of society like veterans?

Veterans are usually tax payers and have a family. the same goes for other "heroes" like doctors and firemen. They are covered enough in the other two groups.

.. but what is with old people who's children are grown up, but who can't work and therefore pay taxes anymore?

Well, they have had a vote long enough. Time for a new generation to take over.

What do you think about it? Could this improve the management of the public good or is it too reactionary? What would you change, if you had the chance to? Let me know in the comments!!