Friday, July 28, 2006
"One Man One Vote" - Time for a change?
The slogan: “one man one vote”, it seems so inherent and so natural that it is never questioned. We accept the rightness and justice of it, after all if all are to be equal then none should be deprived of a say in government.
Well it sounds very good in principle, but like so much, let us look to the reality. Obviously historically even in democratic type systems one person one vote has been the exception rather than the rule. Whilst historically we can look at the important contribution made by England, I think our true starting point has to be the United States of America and in particular the complaint of “No taxation without representation”. Here the colonialists suffering what they perceived as excessive taxation (although probably far less than their descendants now pay) made the complaint that they were having to pay money, but had no say in how it was being spent or I suppose the amount being levied. Thus of course when they came to draw up their Constitution they embodied the principle therein of one man one vote, and from there by various means it has become enshrined as an essential part of democracy. Today of course it means one person one vote as women quite rightly have the vote too.
Now the colonialists were concerned with fairness, and this principle was an important aspect of their Constitution, which however imperfect it may appear today, is still a brilliant idea and document. It contains a whole system of checks and balances designed to prevent forms of dictatorship, although with hindsight there might be more to add.
In 1867 in England, the vote was granted to all adult males in towns; in 1884 this was extended to all adult males. Women weren’t granted the right to vote until much later.
When of course these rights to vote were granted, no one envisaged the welfare system, the various “benefits” available today in the United Kingdom, nor the huge number of people “employed” by the government. All these things have to be paid for, and of course the burden falls on those who work outside the government and pay taxes, we have in effect two different classes (for want of a better word) those who pay their own way and put the money in the pot, and those who take money from the pot. Both classes of people have equal representation (one person one vote) when it comes to deciding how the money in the pot is spent, but only one of the classes actually provides what is to be spent. In other words they have representation without taxation.
To me this operates unfairly, especially as I (nor anyone else) can’t go to those whose sustenance we provide and say: “Look we’ve work that needs doing, come along and do some gardening.” No, we’ve got to work and pay taxes and go without a gardener (or whatever) and pay to keep people in sustenance who if they are on the dole are watching television (hopefully), or if they work for the government I would prefer were watching television as an official unoccupied is an oppression waiting to happen.
My solution, for people of employment age (families to be considered as a whole so as not to disadvantage non working women), the right to vote would still be available to all, but eligibility to vote in any given year will to be contingent upon paying more into the government pot (in the previous year) than what you take out. I would apply this to government employees as well (there would be exceptions to encompass those who directly provide frontline services e.g. the military and police etc) until such times as government is reduced to its essentials.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Well it sounds very good in principle, but like so much, let us look to the reality. Obviously historically even in democratic type systems one person one vote has been the exception rather than the rule. Whilst historically we can look at the important contribution made by England, I think our true starting point has to be the United States of America and in particular the complaint of “No taxation without representation”. Here the colonialists suffering what they perceived as excessive taxation (although probably far less than their descendants now pay) made the complaint that they were having to pay money, but had no say in how it was being spent or I suppose the amount being levied. Thus of course when they came to draw up their Constitution they embodied the principle therein of one man one vote, and from there by various means it has become enshrined as an essential part of democracy. Today of course it means one person one vote as women quite rightly have the vote too.
Now the colonialists were concerned with fairness, and this principle was an important aspect of their Constitution, which however imperfect it may appear today, is still a brilliant idea and document. It contains a whole system of checks and balances designed to prevent forms of dictatorship, although with hindsight there might be more to add.
In 1867 in England, the vote was granted to all adult males in towns; in 1884 this was extended to all adult males. Women weren’t granted the right to vote until much later.
When of course these rights to vote were granted, no one envisaged the welfare system, the various “benefits” available today in the United Kingdom, nor the huge number of people “employed” by the government. All these things have to be paid for, and of course the burden falls on those who work outside the government and pay taxes, we have in effect two different classes (for want of a better word) those who pay their own way and put the money in the pot, and those who take money from the pot. Both classes of people have equal representation (one person one vote) when it comes to deciding how the money in the pot is spent, but only one of the classes actually provides what is to be spent. In other words they have representation without taxation.
To me this operates unfairly, especially as I (nor anyone else) can’t go to those whose sustenance we provide and say: “Look we’ve work that needs doing, come along and do some gardening.” No, we’ve got to work and pay taxes and go without a gardener (or whatever) and pay to keep people in sustenance who if they are on the dole are watching television (hopefully), or if they work for the government I would prefer were watching television as an official unoccupied is an oppression waiting to happen.
My solution, for people of employment age (families to be considered as a whole so as not to disadvantage non working women), the right to vote would still be available to all, but eligibility to vote in any given year will to be contingent upon paying more into the government pot (in the previous year) than what you take out. I would apply this to government employees as well (there would be exceptions to encompass those who directly provide frontline services e.g. the military and police etc) until such times as government is reduced to its essentials.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
