The news that David Nutt, the Government’s chief drug advisor was sacked, has not been taken lightly by the public. At least, this is the impression I’ve taken away from various publications. His role was to inform and advise the Government on drug related issues, such as the classification of certain illegal drugs and regulations surrounding their usage.
It is a pity that David got sacked, but from watching his reaction it looks like he’s much more annoyed at the principle behind the decision than the decision itself. The principle of course being that, when scientific evidence does not fall inline with current government policies, the government does what it can to suppress the scientific evidence.
In a letter to David, Alan Johnson, our home secretary wrote, “I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy” (see BBC article). So, there it is, scientific advice does not fall inline with government policy, and as a result, the advisor got sacked!
I think this speaks quantities about the values and motives of our government, and generally of the democratic model and the effects it can have on the importance of truth.
The fact is, democracy lies in the favour of the majority, hence the ‘Majority rule‘. And it’s been proven countless times, that the majority are not always entirely correct in judgement!
Democracy is quite a curious thing really; in a perfect world it would work perfectly (duh!), although in a perfect world I doubt we’d need government anyway.
So, where we currently stand, some ill-informed, easily-malleable 18 year olds are allowed to vote, and not only are they allowed; their votes each have exactly the same value (to the government) as an OAP’s vote.
Who do you think is more qualified to make decisions in regard to this country’s future, the average 18-year-old, or the average OAP? I think, if we do not agree that OAPs are more qualified then you may as well just stop reading; we’re obviously not on the same page! What I’m saying is that, while it’s our future, I don’t think that we know enough about anything to make that decision (with confidence).
So, wouldn’t it be better if the value of your vote was proportionate to your age? Generally speaking, most things being equal, a person’s experience and knowledge of the world increases inline with age. So, I’ll ask again, why is it that my vote is just as powerful as each of my parents’ votes? Oh, because of democracy!? That model that we’ve coined as ‘the ideal’, nobody doubts it…
Age is probably the most acceptable divider-of-people that would separate us in such a way that, the more experienced individuals will wind up near the top, while the most inexperienced would wind up near the bottom.
My reasoning is that, currently the government cares most about the demographic with the most people in. There are more young people than OAPs, plus young people generally last longer! So, my logic is that by making a vote worth more if the voter is older, it will essentially flip the status quo on its back. The Government will suddenly care more about OAPs, and less about young people! And then, since old people generally care quite a lot about young people, it will even itself out!
PS, I know I’ve over simplified it in some areas, I hope you still understand where I’m coming from.
I stopped reading at “OAPs are more qualified to vote than 18 year olds.”
They’re circling the drain and the majority knows little about the present or future needs of the generation that will succeed them.
A vote is a vote. That’s what makes (the bastardisation of) democracy in this country. Common sense (and corruption) selects the government.
It works. Minus the corruption.
I find your post very interesting coming from a British perspective. I’ve long studied Democracy from the American perspective.
The American founding fathers based the American Constitutional Republic on what they had learned from the leading governmental thinkers from Britain. John Locke and others formed the Founder’s base beliefs on civil government. All of them can be quoted as stating that Democracy was the most abhorrent form of government ever devised and they would have preferred to remain under the King if the choice was limited to those two options alone.
Hence our form of Republic in which the population votes in representatives who then manage the laws on behalf of the citizens and are limited from gaining to much power by the Constitution.
We have seen a persistent program of change implemented since the 1950s to change the general citizens understanding of our form of government from a Constitutional Republic to that of a Democracy. The reason? Because majorities can be created and controlled.
If the majority decides all people over 70 should die because they put to much strain on the health care system, it becomes law, and people die. There is no protection from elitist abuse in a Democracy.
Interesting idea. Unfortunately, as a 50 year old I can tell you that experience and sound judgment don’t automatically come with age. You have to be willing to admit mistakes and learn from them and you have to be a thoughtful person. I’ve often thought it would be cool if we could invent a system where your vote is weighted based on the amount of time you invest, whether that be researching the candidates/issues, some kind of social/political activism, or even plain old community service.
@Will, “A vote is a vote” – Yes, but don’t you think your vote should be weighted according to your experience, and if not then at least your confidence in that vote? Take the average 40-year-old guy in this country and stand him next to the average 18-year-old. Who knows more about the country? Who understands each parties policies more? Whose opinion would you value greater? Sure, some 18-year-olds are far more intelligent than some 40-year-olds, but if you look at it flatly across the population don’t you think that the 40-year-olds will come out on top, in terms of experience, understanding and various other qualities? And if they do shouldn’t their judgement be valued greater? The examples of OAPs was a bit far-fetched, I was trying to illustrate with extremes.
“Common sense (and corruption) selects the government” – common sense of 60 million is NOT common sense. If selecting government were about “common sense” then why do we all vote differently?
@CreativeNotice, “There is no protection from elitist abuse in a Democracy” – has there ever been a system that has had intrinsic protection against such a thing? I can’t think of any… I like that you brought up the monarchy, I wonder what our countries would be like if both existed under absolute monarchies. I really do like the idea of a monarchy. I’d rather laws be decided by one intelligent person than by millions of random people, with equally random mental capacities… Ever watched British parliament? House of commons? It’s a joke, our MPs are like a bunch of monkeys screaming and throwing poop at each other!
@Roger, weighting a vote according to invested time in society etc. would be a good idea, but I can’t think of any way to police such a thing? How would it be measured? Also, I know that not all ‘older people’ are as wise as they’re sometimes made out to be, but I would value their life experience over some 20-something-year-old’s uni-degree any day!
The idea that middle-aged people are any more qualified to vote than young people is just stupid. How do you suggest we weigh the value of one’s vote based on his or her “qualities”? Would it be completely by age? If so then my vote would be worth less than the drunk 40 year old down the street. If it wasn’t by age, then you would have to devise some sort of way to fairly judge people… And we all know that isn’t possible.
About the British parliament; yes it is a joke. This is why I love America, because I can sit at home and watch British government officials make jokes about each other’s mother, all while having piece of mind knowing they aren’t running my life.
And no way in hell would a monarchy be any better than a republic. History proves that.
Age is a fairly meaningless standard, once you’ve reached payed taxes and lived as an independent adult for a fair amount of time your experiences aren’t going to continue provide new lessons, just reinforcements or minor corrects to old arguments. Instead of looking at the average 18 year old vs the average 60 year old… try average 30 year old vs average 80 year old… who’s opinion do you want having more sway on a) education investment, b) copyright law, c) health policy?
if you get more power to your vote with age, then that’s what your setting up.
I do agree with your central thesis, pure democracy doesn’t work because people vote for their own enrichment instead of protecting either society or individual liberty. So how about this idea… if you get money from the goverment, you don’t get to vote… not just welfare (though that would be a large group), but social security, defense contractors, government employees… down the line… any year you get any money from the central authority you don’t get to vote.
Also a proportional vote related to taxes paid (allowing for the purchase of additional “votes” by paying more to the government coffers) would result in productive and intelligent people having a larger say, but with a back stop that a large number of people with smaller stakes could overrule them if the issue is so clear cut.
Under both plans you get a system where producers are making decisions, moochers and those who have a conflict of interests are removed (or lessened).
A side note, that in the early US voting rights were often reserved to those who owned land, following the theory that those who didn’t would have less of a stake in the future outcome of any particular decision.
As a politically very interested 20 year old person, I totally disagree with your opinion. Lots of people at my age are a lot more qualified than some stupid conservative 60+ who vote the same party all their life – which is okay BUT their vote is not based on the party program but based on habit. An other problem of your approach would be that the topics which the parties are concerned about might switch entirely so that education and stuff younger people REALLY care about is not as important any more. My personal idea is not to make just one cross for the party but also one for how important your vote is to you. A lot of people go voting but they don’t really care about what they do. Other people do exactly know what party they are going to vote and WHY they are voting that party. I think this would be a better way to refine the voting process in general.
You might not know this (since you wrote as you did) but old people (60+) are usually crackpots and scared as hell about anything new – Why would we, the young people, let them decide whats best for the whole ?
Old people in Denmark are usually racists and conservatives. They don’t care about whats good for children and young people. They don’t because thats not their main focus anymore. So i don’t like your idea of letting old people decide whats right at all !
I’ve made the same thoughts as you, but with a twist – i too often think that democracy fails, when decisions against the majority are made. But hey, thats the whole point of having a government – to take hard decisions that the single person wouldn’t do by himself. eg: Ban drink driving, Ban smoking indoor, Ban people who wear arms… etc…
So i’ve been thinking that, in order to improve democracy, people should take an exam before they vote – the score of the exam, results in the weight of your vote:
All correct -> 5x
-> ?x
none correct -> 0x
this way, the public would always vote confidently (advised and informed)
although, a problem with this model, is that some people might feel that they are powerless and that the government might oppose all their ideas…
The whole point of Democracy is not to give the power to the people – but to give the people an illusion that they have power
@Playos, I like your idea about government beneficiaries not being allowed to vote, although I’m not sure about allowing people to buy more votes. Won’t that just worsen what we currently have today – rich people having even more sway with the government? It’s probably better than my age idea but it’s still flawed. Thanks for commenting!
@David, good idea, but then most people (who don’t really care) would probably say their vote is very important to them. It would be great if there were a reliable way to determine a person’s true confidence in their vote.
@Martin, what kind of questions would be in this quiz? “The whole point of Democracy is not to give the power to the people – but to give the people an illusion that they have power” – I couldn’t agree more!
@all,
Look, I’m not actually suggesting the scheme I laid out in the post, it’s simply an idea that came to me recently. Frankly, I’m sick of the government and its absolute corruptness at the moment, I have no confidence in our PM, nor his buddies. I can see no party that genuinely cares about good values. They all seem to be arguing about technicalities, all the while our country is sitting on a massive debt.
I’m just looking for a way to change for the better, as it currently stands it completely sucks! Why did David Nutt get sacked? Not because our government is founded on good honest principles.
Maybe my opinion is a little skewed. Most people older than me that I’ve met are very responsible and normally very intelligent. Most people my age that I’ve met are absolute morons that want to get pissed every night for no good reason.
@Evan, America is no better. The system under which we both live is far from perfection, claiming that America has done it right is just misplaced patriotism.
Hey you brought up British parliament. I was just agreeing with you that it is a joke and I like watching it for entertainment
America certainly isn’t perfect, but at least our congress sessions aren’t a complete zoo.
Yikes!
JP, you are very young to have this point of view.. If you really think your thoughts have less merit than mine, merely because I am older. Then take my word for it, you are wrong.
-Bill
Hey James, personally, I find your idea abhorrent. One of the main reasons, in my opinion that the whole one person one vote thing is very strong is because it means that the needs of everyone have to be addressed. If one group, let’s say as you suggest, OAP’s have a much weightier vote than young adults then there is absolutely zero chance that this would not cause issues that effect solely OAP’s would not be addressed before issues that deal with the young.
Also, I generally find much less political awareness in older people than in young people (Defining young as mid-twenties here rather than late teens).
As an example, my entire fathers side of the family votes for the political party that is currently in power here in Ireland, Fianna Fáil. NOTHING will sway them on this. Recently, a Fianna Fáil politician from our constituency was forced to resign due to expenses abuse. He was fond of doing things like flying from Dublin down to Kerry while getting his Garda (our police force) driver to drive down from Dublin and to collect him from the airport. He charged more than €500 to the public coffers for ‘Hat Rental’ and he chartered a limo to take him between airport terminals when there was a free bus service provided.
My father will STILL give his number 1 vote to this politician in the next election. As will all his brothers and sisters, as will his mother and all his surviving aunts and uncles and cousins. And I would almost put money on the fact that few, if any of his nieces and nephews will vote for that party at all.
A lot of people died for democracy over the centuries to give us a system where all votes are equal. The government makes no distinction of gender, race, religious belief, age or income when ignoring your opinion.
Ok. So how does society decide what constitutes an “experienced” voter? How do we determine that old and more experienced people’s votes are worth more? Do we use democratic means to determine the system of voting or do we take an axiomatic approach? If it’s the latter, who gets to design the system of voting standards? Would it be the government in power? Where did this government get its power?
James:
The “Quizz” should contain a set of random questions, which in total will prove how informed/intelligent the voter is. If the voter knows nothing about government, society, law & order, EU etc. etc… then that vote shouldn’t count as much as a vote made by a person who answer correctly on all questions.
in a democracy, the elected has to persuade or “guide” the people to vote in a certain direction… this results in a government/society led by people who are good at talking to people, rather then a society led by intelligent decisions (although i think most decisions have a degree of intelligence)
Hey James,
I’ve been following the David Nutt furore over the last few days, and I’m not at all surprised in the way it has played out.
This Labour government blatantly ignores the nation’s opinions on a whole range of issues, and I don’t doubt for a second the
same arrogance extends to the treatment of their own advisors. One Labour MP (I didn’t his name) trotted out that tired saying, “Scientists
should be on tap, not on top”, which sums up their attitude to evidence and their penchant for basically doing what they want.
I have to say, I do share your opinion of younger people in Britain these days (and have felt the same way throughout my 20s). However, by suggesting a
change in electoral weighting or fairness, you’re actually doing the same thing as those MPs; denying a principle on the basis of your own prejudice.
@James:
Don’t you think people have thought of that before? Here is the big problem with some sort of quiz: WHO is going to write and implement the quiz? If the government in power is charged with the duty, clearly it will write a quiz that skews the vote in its favor. Now even if the government in power decides to allow some “benevolent” body to design the quiz, that quiz will still carry the biases of that body. Here in the US we have a standardized test for admission to university. Supposedly this test measures academic aptitude. Everyone has seen the results: the SATs are best at measuring family income. You really think that a voter aptitude test would be any different? We might as well use people’s income to weight their votes. Or how about skin pigment? If someone tried to make me pass a test before voting it would be over my dead body.