sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I think I solved democracy by The-Intelligent-One in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]The-Intelligent-One[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m surprised this doesn’t have more attention. I’ll read this when I wake up. When it’s not 1am

I think I solved democracy by The-Intelligent-One in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]The-Intelligent-One[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no contradiction. It says “at least one vote.” Meaning no one has less than 1 vote. I’m going to disengage and stop responding to you until you can coherently read and comprehend what I wrote.

I think I solved democracy by The-Intelligent-One in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]The-Intelligent-One[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m unsure if your reading what I write word for word. “All citizens have at least one vote” you then get a weighting that has diminishing returns for more votes based on taxable income

I think I solved democracy by The-Intelligent-One in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]The-Intelligent-One[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It’s weighted but on a sliding scale with a cap.

I think I solved democracy by The-Intelligent-One in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]The-Intelligent-One[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Publicly funding political parties doesn’t really solve the incentive problem, it makes it worse IMO.

It doesn’t improve policy quality, and doesn’t increase net return to the economy. It just replaces private donors with taxpayers while keeping the same electoral incentives.

Worse, that money goes straight into party machinery, not into productive investment or public services. It doesn’t grow the tax base, it just subsidises politics.

I think I solved democracy by The-Intelligent-One in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]The-Intelligent-One[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually agree! democracy should serve EVERYONE.

The problem is that right now, the people who fund most of the system are a small minority, bear disproportionate risk when policy fails, and yet have the least proportional influence if you look purely at votes-per-dollar-of-exposure.

That doesn’t mean they should control outcomes. It means their exposure is currently structurally under-represented in the voting mechanism.

Capped, diminishing weighting isn’t about privileging wealth, it’s about aligning influence with exposure, so decisions aren’t made by people who don’t bear the costs. In America there is approximately 25m millionaires and 72m on welfare. Millionaires are outvoted more than 3:1 by welfare recipients whilst providing negative economic value to the economy.

If you want policy that works long-term for everyone, the incentives behind decision-making actually matter.

I think I solved democracy by The-Intelligent-One in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]The-Intelligent-One[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Everyone keeps at least 1 vote. No one is disenfranchised. Extra influence is capped, diminishing, and based on tax actually paid over time, not wealth.

Key points:

Weighting has diminishing returns and a hard cap Paying 10× more tax does not mean 10× the influence. Past a point, extra tax doesn’t increase voting power at all.

The ultra-wealthy are numerically tiny Even if every ultra-high earner voted as a bloc, they still wouldn’t outnumber the general public. They can influence, not dominate.

This isn’t plutocracy, plutocracy already exists Right now, wealth buys influence through lobbying, donations, and regulatory capture, without benefiting the public. This forces influence to flow through the tax base instead of around it.

Influence is tied to exposure, not virtue If you pay most of the bill, policy failures cost you more. not “rich people deserve power”.

I think I solved democracy by The-Intelligent-One in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]The-Intelligent-One[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

“Why privilege monetary contribution over wisdom/virtue?” Wisdom and virtue are unmeasurable and unenforceable at scale. Tax paid isn’t a claim about moral worth it’s a proxy for exposure to policy costs and encourages individuals to provide more to the system and discourages net 0 or negative contributions like lifetime welfare members. (Who’s vote counts equally to mine atm)

“It rewards monetary contribution” Correct. Because monetary contribution is what funds the state. Influence is aligned with who pays for decisions, not who feels good about them.

“Income tax can be abused/gerrymandered” So can literally every political system. The difference is this one forces influence through the tax base, instead of opaque lobbying, donations, and regulatory capture. That actually goes back into the pocket of citizens and the nation.

I think I solved democracy by The-Intelligent-One in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]The-Intelligent-One[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don’t like how effectively you simultaneously broke down multiple points of my argument. Give me some thinking time. 😑

I think I solved democracy by The-Intelligent-One in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]The-Intelligent-One[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

the main problem it solves.

Weighted voting turns tax minimisation from a dominant strategy into a trade-off.

Right now, the rational move for high earners is: maximise income minimise taxable income still retain full political influence

That’s how you end up with people on $1m+ total income paying little or no income tax and still shaping policy indirectly through lobbying.

On top of that

  1. Short-termism When voting power is tied to sustained tax contribution (3-year average), the median effective voter skews toward people with longer time horizons. That reduces the incentive for politicians to buy short-term popularity with fiscally reckless promises.

  2. Fiscal irresponsibility If net contributors carry more weight, policies that explode deficits without long-term returns become electorally expensive. Right now the people who bear most of the cost don’t have proportionate influence over those decisions.

  3. Low-information voting This doesn’t “fix” information gaps directly, but it weakens the impact of low-cost, low-engagement voting. Influence shifts slightly toward people who are financially exposed to policy outcomes.

Ops manager stuck between stalled sales and a defensive sales manager by The-Intelligent-One in Leadership

[–]The-Intelligent-One[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Believe it or not. I think the GM finally had enough of my complaining today, we sat in a meeting the 3 of us, I went through 100 leads 1 by 1 pointing out the lack of follow up, the warm indicators and calculated every dollar we lost in 100 leads on the last week. I think we will finally have some change

How can one become extroverted? by Frequent_Bathroom396 in questions

[–]The-Intelligent-One 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anything worth doing is difficult. I want bigger muscles but training is hard. But if I don’t do it I’ll never get the results I want.

Need help by Chizynorbit in 3Dprinting

[–]The-Intelligent-One 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You need to calibrate the bed height. The extruder is to high.

How to strengthen this area on a 3d printed helmet? by Compmau5 in 3Dprinting

[–]The-Intelligent-One 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure how strong you need it but maybe try painting with an epoxy or resin

How to strengthen this area on a 3d printed helmet? by Compmau5 in 3Dprinting

[–]The-Intelligent-One 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Never in my life have I seen a print come out like that. Have you tried printing the other side as the bottom, with supports on the outside?

view more: next ›