What If: Willpower-Weighed Democracy as a Check and Balance

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I know that this is not technically possible, certainly not in the near future, so this is just a hypothetical moral question:

If a technically reliable, accurate and fair method to do so existed, would it improve or degrade the democratic process to weigh votes in an election based on will (how much you want or don't want something). If you really want something, it is worth more than the average vote. If you are really ambivalent, your vote would be worth nearly nothing, because you don't really care either way anyway.

1) Extreme example: Democratic country with 99% of ethnic group A and 1% of ethnic group B. Most of A is highly racist - to the extent they want to pass a law legalizing the mass limitation of rights to ethnic group B.

Under democracy, the bill would pass. Even with checks and balances in the constitution, a democratic government would eventually succumb to amendments or "reinterpretations" until the motion is permitted.

However, I think it is reasonable to assume that the desire of a member of A to end the rights of group B is but a fraction of the desire of a member of B to keep their rights. Quantifying it might be:
Group A desire/capita for bill to pass: 1
Group B desire/capita for bill to lose: 100
Group A = 1 * 99%
Group B = 100 * 1%

In such a case, Group B has a chance of winning, and thus keeping their rights (at least nominally). Group A would be somewhat unhappy, but I bet they won't be in as much pain as group B members' had the bill passed.

2) Pressure example: Sometimes, organizations apply pressure to their employees to vote a certain way on a certain issue. Under the new scheme, however, if you are coerced to vote a certain way, your vote will either receive a low value or even a negative value. That would both negate the effectiveness of such measures and eventually the use of such measures after people realize they don't get them anything anyway.

[Morilore]

NO, NO, NO, NO!

Fundies can summon inhuman levels of devotion and "willpower." No rational person could ever compete with the fanaticism of an idiot, by the very nature of intelligence.

[Surlethe]

This would turn the bell curve upside down: generally, the further from the center you are, the more adamant you are about your position. Thus, this new strategy would give weight to extremists, and people in the center, who don't really care, wouldn't receive much weight at all.