[vankessel]

Are you serious? That's a terrible idea. Every vote should counted equally as everyone should get to represent their own interests. This is the point of democracy. Taking rights away from those you view as "undesirables" is wrong.

[The_rationalist]

Getting the right score for a person is an open problem. But knowledge and intelligence should be incentivised. The fact that most people voting don't read politicians programs should show how autistic our system is. It has criminal consequences on humanity sustainability and well being.

[dragonwriter]

> But knowledge and intelligence should be incentivised.

They already are, though that can be improved by decreasing the role of heritable wealth and the disadvantages of poverty through better taxation and social support policies.

Voting is the wrong place to incentivize it, even if you could without first having improved the degree to which it is incentivized in the rest of society.

> The fact that most people voting don't read politicians programs should show how autistic our system is.

Using autistic as an insult here is inappropriate on multiple levels; also, I'd argue that it's perhaps jist rational, since politicians actions are only rarely usefully related to their written programs, and there are much more accessible ways of getting information that is much better at predicting their behavior in office.

[The_rationalist]

Using autistic as an insult here is inappropriate on multiple levels; It was not meant to be in the litteral sense, I was meaning retarded which indeed real autists are not. Most insults/pejorative words are not understood literally usually but well you're probably right.

since politicians actions are only rarely usefully related to their written programs This is just too excessive, hyperbolic. If you want to quantify it, there you go: https://trumptracker.github.io/ much more accessible ways of getting information that is much better at predicting their behavior in office. Enlighten me then, where is such a thing?

[vankessel]

On the surface I like the idea of the knowledgeable and intelligent having more say, but I do not think it would work in practice. It is misleading to frame it as there being a "correct" weighing out there and that we just need to find it. Any non-equal metric used for weighing an individual's vote will be gamed and exploited. And there is the possibility of creating a class divide of intellectuals if the metric is intelligence.

I believe a safer solution is to overhaul education. This way we get both the equality of democracy and the better decision making of an educated populace.

[w0de]

It's an open problem. All the proposed solutions are an invitation to or an implementation of tyranny.

There's also ethical questions around whether solving the problem is even something any human is entitled to do.

[The_rationalist]

It's an open problem It's nice to see this is at least recognized.

All the proposed solutions are an invitation to or an implementation of tyranny. Such a categorical claim (universal Quantifier!) from someone that probably has zero background in voting theory and not enough in epistemology e.g cognitive biases and logical fallacies.

You make such a powerful claim but honestly, in all sincerity: All the proposed solutions How many alternatives are you aware? 1? Dictature ? Two maybe ?

You don't know what you don't know and me neither but at least I know that I don't know what I don't know. The best solution to me is the one I co-designed with my brother, it is not public and will only be when I'll have a mature software implementation. But public solutions that are still an improvement would be for exemple an epistocracy semi-direct. I can explain it to you if you're open to the possibility of changing your mind about "representative" democracy being the least worst governing system.

There's also ethical questions around whether solving the problem is even something any human is entitled to do. No.

[w0de]

I'm no expert. My universal qualifier is based on sci-fi fever dreams and ugly history.

> There's also ethical questions around whether solving the problem is even something any human is entitled to do. No.

I'm more interested in hearing you explain this.