The right of the people to vote and elect their representatives, without any discrimination of caste, class, colour, education, race, economic condition, religion or sex but only with a minimum age, is called adult franchise or universal suffrage or one person, one vote system. Weighted voting, on the other hand, is an electoral system in which all voters do not have the same amount of influence or power over the outcome of an election.
The Roman assemblies provided for weighted voting based on the persons’ social class where, instead of counting one vote per person, the assemblies convened in blocks with the plurality of voters in each block as an entity. Men of certain tribes and higher social standing convened in smaller blocks thus giving their individual vote the effect of many ordinary citizens’ votes.
In the 19th century, John Stuart Mill criticised this system and was of the view that the people who are more educated, pay more taxes and are advanced in age, should be given more votes than those who are younger, illiterate and do not pay any tax. Hippolyte Taine, a French thinker, critic and historian of the 19th century, said: “Votes should not be counted, they should be weighed.”
The weighted average is an average value of a particular set of numbers with different level of relevance. The relevance of each number is called its weight. The weights are represented as a percentage of the total relevancy. Similarly, in voting, the weight or worth of vote of a person with higher education, with more mundane experience should be more or of higher relevance than a young illiterate without any knowledge or experience.
There are lots of arguments for and against the weighted franchise. Those against it argue that everybody is equally affected by the laws made by the representatives and therefore should have a right to elect their lawmaker.It encourages the prestige of the people in the society since big leaders come to them for votes and get educated on the problem of the common citizens; adult suffrage imparts political education to the people, and their interest is created in the government.
Those in favour of weighted voting argue that educated and knowledgeable people should govern the country. They refute the idea of ignorant people running a country. The governance of states has now become very complicated and complex affair which cannot be comprehended by an uninformed voter who shall tend to vote only for the contestant whom he knows rather than on the basis of the policies of his affiliated party or his own individual policies, if he is an independent candidate. Secondly, the richest person can purchase the votes from the poor people thus making a mockery of the electoral process.
An attempt was made by Gen Musharraf whereby it was mandated to be a graduate to become a member of parliament which, ostensibly, was a good decision and could have enabled the educated persons to become lawmakers. But our so-called ‘elite’ found ways to circumvent this requirement by presenting forged graduate degrees, creating a comical situation where graduation was done one year before doing matric.
In Pakistan, the literacy rate is already low. National Literacy Agency in Pakistan has defined a person to be literate who can “read and write a paragraph (three lines) in a national or regional language with comprehension”. If you deduct the three-liner literates from the literate population, the reader can well imagine the voters who can understand the modern-day implications of the policies proffered by various political parties before, during or after the elections. For example, how many voters comprehended the first 100-day agenda of PTI and will also vote on July 25? How many voters can understand what is the real cost of any project undertaken by any government when you take the sustainability of the said projects? Does the voter know that with any subsidy to any project or a set of the population, he himself ends up paying from his pocket either in the shape of taxes or inflation?
When democracy works, it delivers economic growth and fundamental freedom in a way that no other system can. And when it fails, if ever, it is replaced by a system that can do a better job
In a book titled ‘Edge of Chaos: Why Democracy Fails to Deliver Economic Growth’, the writer Dambisa Moyo has dilated on this subject and is worth reading. She concludes that “endless elections, unqualified leaders, uninformed voters and short-term thinking are impeding the economic growth. When democracy works, it delivers economic growth and fundamental freedom in a way that no other system can. And when it fails, it is rarely, if ever, replaced by a system that can do a better job of delivering for its population.
Democracies must therefore adapt, or they will further decay. Eradicating political myopia is essential, but even more, reforms will be necessary.” She calls for a system of weighted voting in which ballot counts depending on a voter’s qualification. Should we in Pakistan have a serious debate on this moot point to go for weighted voting till such time that the voters can elect their lawmakers after comprehending the candidates/political party’s policies which are going to affect them?
The writer is a Chartered Accountant and can be reached at [email protected]
Published in Daily Times, May 30th 2018.