One of my father's favorite hobbies was sitting on the couch watching the news. I remember that during my childhood I would sit next to him and be surprised by the collection of images shown about events around the world: The Persian Gulf War, The World Cup, The Bosnian War, and The Olympic Games among many others, which made a big impression on me.
On the regional side, I was drawn to politics, because of the obvious impact it had on my family, our community and our country. In Mexico, after December '94, it was impossible not to talk about politics and economics. The country was immersed in the worst crisis that—at least I—had seen. That event triggered my curiosity to investigate the history of our political party in power, and even at my very young age, I was frustrated with—at least from my moral perspective at that time—what seemed not only horrible, but the Dumbest decisions anyone could make. But, how did those types of people have achieved the power to make such terrible decisions: they had been elected—or at least that's what it seemed like.
I remember once confronting my father asking, “How was it possible that [your generation] chose them?”
“I don't know,” he patiently responded to his anxious son. “There was no other option at that time.” He responded even though I knew he had voted for the opposition in the two previous elections that I could remember.
At an age when the phrases “rigged elections” or “fraud” had no meaning to me, I dared to venture into thinking that perhaps there was something bad with Democracy, since “bad” men continued to be elected despite their terrible performances in office.
My first hypothesis was that maybe there was nothing wrong with Democracy, just maybe we had lost something along the way. So I traveled more than two thousand years to ancient Greece to study the roots of democracy.
I was greatly surprised when I realized that Socrates and Plato, considered by many the greatest philosophers of the ancient world, had come to realize the flaws of Democracy. They had observed how the person exercised their vote without putting their decision through careful scrutiny and investigation, which could lead to demagoguery. They agreed that voting should be reserved for “philosophers,” and by philosophers they meant, people who would think, investigate, and confront their ideas, in order to cast a considered vote.
It made total sense to me. But how to force a conscientious vote? It is impossible to control how people think or what they choose to believe.
But if we can't avoid it maybe we can minimize it, so my solution focused on restricting the impact of the vote harmful. If we establish a weighted vote in which the value of the individual's vote is scaled, say from 1 to 5, and people have to "earn" that weight based on certain criteria such as: level of education, being a scholar in fields of study, businessmen, and to not tilt the power of the vote to the upper social classes, also include people in fields such as philanthropy (orphanages and asylums) or in direct service to the community or popular causes (teachers, police officers, soldiers, doctors, nurses, environmentalists , etc.) this would create a vote that more efficiently represents the decision-making power of a population.
However, having the ability to vote does not mean that they know what the different candidates propose for their government, which is why I determined that corroboration was necessary, and as an enthusiastic student, I decided that an exam was the best way to demonstrate it. A simple exam where people demonstrate that they actually know and understand the proposals of the available candidates. So every electoral period, all those interested in voting should come to renew their “voting permit” prior to exercising their vote. So citizens who care about their country would be more than happy to undergo an examination like this.
Once I had finished my proposed solution, I realized that if I ever revealed it, I would be considered at least a fascista, for trying to restrict the vote and undermine democracy in my country, because: in what country in the world have such rigorous rules been established?
Therefore, I kept my ideas on my desk.
Two weeks ago, reading Dambise Moyo, a global economist, in her book On the Edge of Chaos: Why democracy is failing to create economic growth? She lists both weighted voting and a screening process as one of many methods to improve our democracy.
This made me feel both happy and sad. Happy that my ridiculous ideas were actually a good solution to the problem according to the experts, but sad because we are actually very far from achieving a better democracy that is truly inclusive and that doesn't just care about individuals in the upper echelons of power.
At my age, now I can finally understand my father's response. It was the best way to describe his frustration. The common man's frustration with the common work that most of us understand.
And I, like you, understand the despair that our voice is not meaningful to our country.
But still, I urge you to vote.
Although I cannot help improve Democracy for you, I can only ask you to be a philosopher when you cast your vote.
That you think, that you investigate, that you read, that you speak, that you debate and that you re-think again.
So, vote.
M. Ch. Landa
