<HTML><BODY>
<div>(I <span class="correction" id=""><span class="correction" id="">recognise</span></span> that this is controversial)<br>
<br>
Anyway, arguably, where the are major power differentials, the concept of 1 person one vote is <br>
less applicable. <br>
<br>
For example, one of the problems with a world democratic government is that it will <span class="correction" id="">transfer</span> <br>
power to countries (or at least their citizens) which are not currently very powerful. This <br>
means that powerful countries will resist any such change (and rightly so). The minimum that <br>
would occur is that they would pay higher taxes and those taxes would be spent on the poorer <br>
countries. Even worse would include forced social changes which are designed to reduce their <br>
power.<br>
<br>
However, if a mechanism could be created that would maintain the current power balance, <br>
maybe there would be less resistance. I am not actually an advocate of a world government, <br>
but I think this topic can be handled better in that context than applying it to government at <br>
the country level as most residents in a country are reasonably similar in power (with a small <br>
number with high power).<br>
<br>
One option would be to come up with a measure of power for each country. Each citizen (or <br>
maybe resident) of that country would be allowed vote an equal share of the country's power.<br>
<br>
This would mean that a US citizen's vote would have a higher weight than a citizen of a 3rd <br>
world country.<br>
<br>
I make a suggestion at:<br>
<br>
http://wikocracy.com/wiki/index.php/Equalization_of_Members<br>
<br>
(I only added the power part, not the whole article)<br>
<br>
The power of a nation shall be the sum of:
<ul><li> Military Power: twice the total military spending over the previous decade
</li><li> Economic Power: Average yearly GDP over the previous decade
</li><li> Generosity: 10 times the country's contribution to the UN over the previous decade
</li><li> Population: Population multiplied by the world's per capita GDP (averaged over the previous decade)
</li></ul>
A country which spends 5% of its GDP on military forces, pays 1% of its GDP in taxes to <br>
the UN and has a per capita GDP the same as the world's per capita GDP would score <br>
the same in all 4 categories.<br>
<br>
I give a list of the ratings of various countries in the talk pages of the above article (USA <br>
edges out China slightly, <span class="correction" id=""><span class="correction" id="">China's</span></span> population advantage nearly exactly balances the <span class="correction" id=""><span class="correction" id="">USA's</span></span> <br>
<span class="correction" id=""><span class="correction" id="">miltary</span></span> spending advantage. The next highest is Japan at around one quarter of them).<br>
<br>
http://wikocracy.com/wiki/index.php/Talk:Equalization_of_Members<br>
<br>
One problem with that it creates an incentive for countries to "cook the books".<br>
<br>
Another way of determining power would be to use the above to initially allocate power <br>
and then have some way to keep it "current". For example, each country could be given <br>
a power rating according to the above formula but trading in power "tokens" would be <br>
allowed. A powerful country should be able to increase its representation by purchasing <br>
more tokens. One issue here is that countries would never sell their tokens.<br>
<br>
This could be reduced by auctioning the seats every few years (rather than allowing trading).<br>
That way countries wouldn't think of specific seats as "theirs", so suggesting that the <br>
country only buy 3 seats this time instead of 4 would not be political suicide. It is <br>
economically equivalent, but people tend to value objects that are "theirs" over the same<br>
objects that are on auction. Also, the auction wouldn't count as a wealth transfer as<br>
each country would get seats in proportion to what they paid.<br>
<br>
Another system is from<br>
<br>
http://wikocracy.com/wiki/index.php/Talk:US_Constitution%2C_Twenty_Ninth_Amendment<br>
<br>
called the <span class="correction" id=""><span class="correction" id="">Gondour</span></span> System (from Mark Twain)<br>
<br>
http://mark-twain.classic-literature.co.uk/curious-republic-of-gondour/<br>
<br>
In this people are given a vote for achievements. For example:<br>
<br>
Being Alive: 1<br>
Graduating 8th grade: 1<br>
Graduating high school: 1<br>
Graduating 11th grade: 1<br>
Pass a citizenship test: 2<br>
Get a degree (2-3 year): 2<br>
Getting a degree (4 year): 3<br>
Getting a Masters: 3<br>
Getting a <span class="correction" id=""><span class="correction" id="">Phd</span></span>: 4<br>
Total taxes paid: 1 per $50k<br>
<br>
This means that most people will get 6-8 votes. It also means that children will get some <br>
votes, giving them some say while at the same time giving them less of a weight. Also, <br>
rather than at 18 getting all their vote, their voting strength will increase as time passes.<br>
<br>
One issue with that is that votes are effectively proxies for bullets (or at least proxies for <br>
power). Nearly everyone in the US is equally capable of disrupting the orderly flow of <br>
society and it is that and not some concept of fairness that means all should have equal <br>
votes. Also, the cost of the corruption involved in figuring out what the weightings should <br>
be is probably larger than any benefit from having unequal weights (unless they can be <br>
clearly defined).<br>
<br>
A final option is to go with the system that the US had originally, a federal government with <br>
1 person/1 vote and where the States pay taxes in proportion to their population without <br>
reference to income. This means that it cannot be used as a wealth transfer system <br>
because the tax per voter is kept stable.<br>
<br>
A slight variant on this system could be that votes are proportional to taxes paid. Each <br>
country would declare its GDP and would pay taxes in proportion to that GDP. However, <br>
the voting strength of the citizens (or residents) would be in proportion to the taxes paid <br>
per capita. This could be accomplished by allocating seats in the legislatures in proportion <br>
to the taxes paid by the countries. For things like electing a President, the votes would <br>
have to have the weightings directly applied (or alternatively, an electoral college like <br>
arrangement).<br>
<br>
One issue with that is that taxes can be imposed indirectly. The Kyoto treaty (if enforced) <br>
will transfer money from more developed to less developed countries (in addition to <br>
<span class="correction" id=""><span class="correction" id="">transfering</span></span> from high pollution to low pollution countries). However, that would not show <br>
up as taxes paid, so the paying country would not get its boost in representation.<br>
<br>
Maybe the rule should be all taxes less transfers or something.<br>
<br>
Also, that rule or any like it is likely to come under extreme fire. Head taxes may be <br>
economically efficient, but they are not democratically popular. This means that <br>
additional constitutional <span class="correction" id=""><span class="correction" id="">guarantees</span></span> would be required, <span class="correction" id=""><span class="correction" id="">kinda</span></span> like the rule not allowing<br>
States get less than 2 seats in the Senate in the US constitution.<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div style="clear: both;"><span class="correction" id=""><span class="correction" id="">Raphfrk</span></span><br>
--------------------<br>
Interesting site<br>
"what if anyone could modify the laws"<br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id=""><span class="correction" id="">www</span></span>.wikocracy.com</div>
<div class="AOLPromoFooter">
<hr style="margin-top:10px;" />
<a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1081283466x1074645346/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaim%2Ecom%2Ffun%2Fmail%2F" target="_blank"><b>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail</b></a> -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.<br />
</div>
</BODY></HTML>