Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
(Steps for this essay:, Quotes I will use from book:, What is democracy?,…
Steps for this essay:
- Establish what a democracy. What is the belief behind it? What is the essence of democracy? Say that you are breaking down democracy and its significance/meaning, because it would clarify the effects of plural voting.
Establish what plural voting. Basically repeat the prompt but in a way that hints that you are against plural voting.
-
Talk about how it is important that people care about the election and care about government and actively pursue what they believe to be the right thing. Mill talks about that.
Then mention that it is baffling that someone who wants people to be involved in government and fight for their rights and opinions would be a proponent of plural voting
Plural voting causes the problems Mill complains about. It makes a higher class than the regular people.
What are the positives of plural voting? It mitigates the weakness of democracy that people are uneducated and will be swayed by charisma. I do trust philosophers more than the uneducated person. But they have their own agendas, they are swayed by bias, too. Even if they were not, the very essence of plural voting is off-putting and against democracy.
-
What is democracy?
Democracy is a form of government in which there is equal input in directing state power. Democracy is a government where the decisions are made either directly or indirectly (voting via representatives)
Plural voting harms democracy. Democracy is for the people and by the people. NOT for the people, by select few people.
-
My problem with the philosopher thing is how rare it is for someone to be a phiolsopher. And how difficult it is to become a philosopher. All of a sudden, political power is not available to everyone.
I agree that democracy's weakness is that impressionable people get swayed by charisma and populism. Cults of personality instead of reason wins more times than not because most people are not reasonable.
My answer to that is to not just give the voting power to so called reasonable people. Instead, force voters to gain reason. Give them an objective test. They must name 3 policies that their preferred candidate wants to implement and they should say why those policies will be good for the nation. Their answers will be fact-checked by scouring through each candidates' speeches and interviews. No reasons of perceived character, race, gender can be given. This will force prospective voters to actually look at what their candidate wants to implement and question their own beliefs in order to vote, instead of being swayed by popularity or other factors that have little impact on the good of the state.
It may not starkly increase the quantity of voter participation, but it will increase the quality. Or say that people
Imagine that we could institute the following system of plural voting: every adult citizen gets at least
one vote, but those citizens who are also philosophy professors (roughly 10,000 people) get a total of four
votes each. Imagine also that we know that this system would significantly increase voter participation –
specifically, we know that under the plural system, 20 million citizens who otherwise would not bother
-
-