labor disintegrating, page-40

Banjar, you say, “I never said that anyone should be excluded, go back and read my posts carefully. I merely said that a persons voting power should reflect their contribution to the society.”

Weighing votes is weighing people’s worth. It’s discriminatory, it’s arbitrary, it’s totally against the ethos of EGALITARIANISM and of the heart of the notion of Democracy, which is inclusion. Either someone is included or someone is excluded. Partial inclusion, no matter what the criteria, is dependant upon establishing a set of criteria by those who have passed that set of criteria and thus have a self interest in it. In other words, you have created a group of “vote-haves” who will always vote “vote-non haves” out of Parliament, in effect, disenfranchising them.
Three votes for one person and only one vote for another means that those with a single vote will always lose.

You say that “Obviously each individual by their mere presence makes the most basic contribution.”
Yes, they’ll be contributing their presence… in the workplace but they’ll have no ability to voice their concern about how that workplace is run –what industrial/wage laws should be applied.
Yes they’ll have “presence” but one which will be treated with lesser import to those people who have thrice their voting power.

You say, “those that make a contribution over and above the average person…”

What on earth is an average person? Who the hell has the right to claim s/he’s above average?

“Contribution?” To what? How do you judge a parent who’s staying home to look after a pair of children to the best of his/her ability, in terms of contribution? One vote or three? What if they’re can afford a live-in nanny? Still one vote or three? After all, they’re employers! Or someone who’s tried everything to find a job but simply can’t (because the boss has three votes to his one and so the IR laws are written by him and his ilk?) How do you judge someone who was born ill? One vote or three?

Where are you delightful demarcation lines, banjar? Who will be the beaurocrats that will decide who gets the max and who gets the min votes?
The Aryans?

You say, “You appear ready to concede defeat the moment you cast your vote and let the politicians do their own thing for term of the parliament, but not give those who really provide the cogs neccessary for a society to operate any greater say than say a prisoner in jail.”
I do not concede defeat. I merely state reality. I’m optimistic in that, while the Govn’t still has a “one-man-one-vote” system (apart from remote and sparse communities) it is possible to get to see your local member and to keep him/her on their toes if they go too far away from your sense of fairness; and to change the Govn’t itself. If we adopt the “me thrice more important than you” system then all that is under extreme threat.
Who are those who “provide the cogs?”

You say, “As for your response regarding lobbying your local member, I rest my case.”
You’ve lost me there. What I mean is that once you have an elite group running the Govn’t, it won’t be too surprising if that group becomes so corrupt, (or so despondent) that they’ll get to make laws to serve only those who hold the max. number of votes: the “three-voters!”

Oh, and while I’m at it, let me put your little aphorism in another way:
"The thicker the pile on the office carpet, the thinner the voteholder’s dividend".
And give you another aphorism that’s been shouted from the rooftops during these elections: “Australia is not an economy but a society”
By all means, banjar, engage in business activity but never for one minute, think that a Democratic country should be run as a business!