One Man, One Vote?


Joseph Farkas thinks that every vote cast should equal every other vote.
He feels that many people are voting without knowing why they are voting for a
certain person or why they aren\'t voting for another. He says that a vote cast
by a person with no or very little knowledge in the election should not count as
much as a vote cast by a person who knows alot about the election. The people
who care about who has an important role in the government should have a bigger
say in who is going to have that important role. The votes cast by a person who
doesn\'t really know why they are voting for someone should not equal as much as
an election educated person.
I do not think that this is a good idea at all. It would not encourage
people to learn more about the election but keep them away from the voting area.
It will probably make people not want to vote because many of them would think
that their vote will not mean as much to the election. It would make the people
who are familiar with the candidates want to vote because they would have a
bigger say in who gets elected. It would be very hard to decide who know what
about the running candidates and issues that are being addressed. They would
have to give some kind of multiple-choice question test that you had to fill out
while voting. It would take a long time for each person to vote and I think that
would make people less encouraged to come and vote. Since the only way to link a
vote with a test is to have them on the same paper the voters would have to take
a test every time they voted. Most people want to walk in, vote, and walk out.
They don\'t want to fill out a test asking them about what they know. For the
people who don\'t know alot about the election, they don\'t want to say that when
they vote. If the test was only optional it might work out a little better. The
test would be on the ballot and if you wanted to fill it out then you could. If
you didn\'t fill it out or failed it when you took it then your vote would still
equal one vote. The people who took the test and passed it would get their vote
counted as more than a normal vote. This would be better because if someone just
wanted to vote and leave they wouldn\'t have to take the test. For those who
wanted their vote to count more they could take the test. A problem with this is
that no one would know if they passed or failed the test. The only large
disadvantage would be how to score the tests. Each voting area would have to
have a computer that could score each test and then send all the results through
modem and phone lines to a large server that could keep track of everything.
This would be expensive. The problem with this is that anything to do with
computers, modems, and phone lines; hackers and phrackers can get the data and
alter it in any way they please. I\'m sure the government could make it hard for
people to get access to the data but any experienced hacker could get at it with
a little work.
Having different people\'s votes equal different amounts is not a good
idea. It would only make more people not want to vote. The only way it could
work would be to make the test optional and have the votes of those who don\'t
take the test equal a normal vote. Even this would make alot of people not want
to go to the voting areas to vote.

Category: History