27 Sep '13 09:03>1 edit
I recently had a debate with a friend about this issue. We didn't each take one particular side, but rather showed points for both sides of the issue. Comments? For the sake of the debate, please don't say one-man-one-vote because we all know that that is the best way to go, this is a hypothetical scenario in which we discuss the implications if one of the scenarios had to be implemented.
Some of the points that came up were:
1. Richer people generally are better educated and so make more informed decisions and so by giving them more votes, you are ensuring that the right people get into power and do the best job possible.
The counter-argument to this point was that while giving them more votes might help, human nature shows that people generally look after themselves and so the richer people will vote for people who don't look after the poor of society e.g the poor wouldn't receive welfare from taxpayers' money. (The rich are generally the biggest taxpayers)
2. However, rich came back with the notion that the rich people, having more education, are more likely to be trusted in decision making than the poor, who vote for extremists as history has shown with the Great Depression and the conversion of many governments to fascism. Many poor people vote for people who promise but don't provide, argued rich. A example would be all the poor of Zimbabwe voting for Robert Mugabe, who today is still a ruthless dictator.
Poor came to say that giving rich people more votes is supremacy and that the government would not represent the majority of the population.
I will refrain from posting anymore as I will leave you to give your own opinion. I would normally post this in the debates forum, but I think this forum needs some lifeblood.
Some of the points that came up were:
1. Richer people generally are better educated and so make more informed decisions and so by giving them more votes, you are ensuring that the right people get into power and do the best job possible.
The counter-argument to this point was that while giving them more votes might help, human nature shows that people generally look after themselves and so the richer people will vote for people who don't look after the poor of society e.g the poor wouldn't receive welfare from taxpayers' money. (The rich are generally the biggest taxpayers)
2. However, rich came back with the notion that the rich people, having more education, are more likely to be trusted in decision making than the poor, who vote for extremists as history has shown with the Great Depression and the conversion of many governments to fascism. Many poor people vote for people who promise but don't provide, argued rich. A example would be all the poor of Zimbabwe voting for Robert Mugabe, who today is still a ruthless dictator.
Poor came to say that giving rich people more votes is supremacy and that the government would not represent the majority of the population.
I will refrain from posting anymore as I will leave you to give your own opinion. I would normally post this in the debates forum, but I think this forum needs some lifeblood.