How to shore up voting against parties?

[Brickjectivity]

Parties are not good and also good. They are not good when they take over the process of voting and attempt to control it. Parties are good when they present ideas and potential politicians.

Lately something new has been invented called 'Statistics' and political polling, and its often very accurate. A party can contact Gallup or some other research institute and ask how they are doing in the polls and get back a pretty good answer. They can find out where they are weak, which groups need to be fooled or convinced and where to spend the money.

The results are spectacular, and we've all seen them right here at election time. Every race is 'Close'. That's because whenever one party is behind they are given early warning by polls. This allows people to plan campaigns very neatly. They know where to spend and who to talk to, and often they can ignore large sections of the population. They also use this when redrawing voting precinct lines, and we've all seen how crazy those lines are -- all in an effort to ignore a lot of voters and still win elections.

What do you think of this: whenever a race is close we add a lottery that will tip it by something like 12%. We'll have some very secure and public lottery to guarantee that the outcome is never certain when the race is close. All parties will then have to seek a 12% advantage and will no longer be able to win on close margins. They'll have to win more voters.

 

[Vaziri]

Parties are not good and also good. They are not good when they take over the process of voting and attempt to control it. Parties are good when they present ideas and potential politicians.

Lately something new has been invented called 'Statistics' and political polling, and its often very accurate. A party can contact Gallup or some other research institute and ask how they are doing in the polls and get back a pretty good answer. They can find out where they are weak, which groups need to be fooled or convinced and where to spend the money.

The results are spectacular, and we've all seen them right here at election time. Every race is 'Close'. That's because whenever one party is behind they are given early warning by polls. This allows people to plan campaigns very neatly. They know where to spend and who to talk to, and often they can ignore large sections of the population. They also use this when redrawing voting precinct lines, and we've all seen how crazy those lines are -- all in an effort to ignore a lot of voters and still win elections.

What do you think of this: whenever a race is close we add a lottery that will tip it by something like 12%. We'll have some very secure and public lottery to guarantee that the outcome is never certain when the race is close. All parties will then have to seek a 12% advantage and will no longer be able to win on close margins. They'll have to win more voters.

I'm not too certain about how. I definitely agree with the issue and some measures need to be taken. Main problem now is that people basically worship these parties and will blindly back anything they say.
Personally I think there should be some form of IQ and Emotional testing done. And if you're not high enough on the charts then no vote for you! lol. That's a bit drastic on one hand but on the other if a person can't successfully do what's best for themselves then why should they get a vote that affects others lives.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm not too certain about how. I definitely agree with the issue and some measures need to be taken. Main problem now is that people basically worship these parties and will blindly back anything they say.
Personally I think there should be some form of IQ and Emotional testing done. And if you're not high enough on the charts then no vote for you! lol. That's a bit drastic on one hand but on the other if a person can't successfully do what's best for themselves then why should they get a vote that affects others lives.

My objection to IQ testing is that even low IQ votes contain information. In particular they contain information that only low IQ people have, things like are they starving and are they angry and are they employed. I also favor for similar reasons allowing federal prisoners to have a fraction of a vote each, such as 1/5 or 1/3. Then they will have a voice and can push very lightly for much needed prison reform.

High IQ people generally (not always but generally) are represented. They fit in. They acquire knowledge and housing and don't need so much looking after, and its the low IQ people who tend to get ignored. So...while I understand that lower IQ people can't fix the voting system and may be manipulated they still contribute important knowledge about themselves, and that in turn is knowledge about whether the political system is working.

I'd be interested in hearing statistical facts about whether high IQ people can be manipulated with false news. I think they can. I have not read studies about though. If you know of any such studies I would be able to understand the data, the sampling and the Math behind it. At the moment I'm only aware of news stories about it like this one in the Guardian. (The Guardian always asks for a donation by the way. Forewarned.)
Why smart people are more likely to believe fake news

 

[Vaziri]

My objection to IQ testing is that even low IQ votes contain information. In particular they contain information that only low IQ people have, things like are they starving and are they angry and are they employed. I also favor for similar reasons allowing federal prisoners to have a fraction of a vote each, such as 1/5 or 1/3. Then they will have a voice and can push very lightly for much needed prison reform.

High IQ people generally (not always but generally) are represented. They fit in. They acquire knowledge and housing and don't need so much looking after, and its the low IQ people who tend to get ignored. So...while I understand that lower IQ people can't fix the voting system and may be manipulated they still contribute important knowledge about themselves, and that in turn is knowledge about whether the political system is working.

I'd be interested in hearing statistical facts about whether high IQ people can be manipulated with false news. I think they can. I have not read studies about though. If you know of any such studies I would be able to understand the data, the sampling and the Math behind it. At the moment I'm only aware of news stories about it like this one in the Guardian. (The Guardian always asks for a donation by the way. Forewarned.)
Why smart people are more likely to believe fake news

All great points! I definitely do believe each person voice matters equally and deserve to be heard. If only there was a way to remove votes from say the racist or just simply evil people.
Sounds like a fairytale wish but I do hope for some kinda positive change.