Authors
Abstract
This paper revisits John Stuart Mill’s famous proposal for plural voting, according to which universal suffrage is conjoined with the possibility for some to claim and utilise multiple votes if they meet a particular set of qualifications. We observe the proposal in the light of Mill’s own historical context, but we also evaluate it with respect to the changing social and political conditions that ensued. Surely, the proposal faces criticisms in both contexts taken separately, but some of the previously prominent objections retain their force, while others recede in contemporary circumstances. Accordingly, for instance, the paper recognises the force of the objection that the educated experts who are to hold multiple votes are difficult to identify with the ideal of quality decision-making and the common good in mind, but rejects dated assumptions such as that of the overwhelming strength of class bias or the predominantly class-based motivations for social grouping. Most importantly, although the paper ultimately rejects Mill’s plural voting proposal, it supports his attempt to incorporate experts into quality democratic decision-making, and investigates the practical forms of their inclusion. First, we outline the plural voting proposal in the context in which it initially arose. Second, we introduce the first objections to plural voting according to which such a mechanism undermines the educative role that Mill sets for democracy. Third, we discuss the problem of who the handlers of multiple votes – the “educated” – are supposed to be, their class background, the expertise required, and the strength of underlying class biases. Fourth, we look at the different stages of the political decision-making process, in search of possible remedies for the problems brought about by plural voting. Fifth, we assess some of the assumptions underlying Mill’s proposal in light of contemporary society. In summary, we argue for the rejection of the plural voting scheme, but we discuss alternative ways of including experts in the decision-making process
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,360
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Science in a Democratic Society.Philip Kitcher - 2011 - Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 101:95-112.
Democracy and Moral Conflict.Robert B. Talisse - 2009 - Cambridge University Press.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Plural Voting and Political Equality: A Thought Experiment in Democratic Theory.Trevor Latimer - 2018 - European Journal of Political Theory 17 (1):1474885115591344.
J.S. Mill on Plural Voting, Competence and Participation.J. J. Miller - 2003 - History of Political Thought 24 (4):647-667.
Voting in Bad Faith.Joanne C. Lau - 2014 - Res Publica 20 (3):281-294.
Is Compulsory Voting Justified?Annabelle Lever - 2009 - Public Reason 1 (1):57-74.
Compulsory Voting: A Critical Perspective.Annabelle Lever - 2010 - British Journal of Political Science 40:897-915.
Suitable Properties for Any Electronic Voting System.Jean-Luc Koning & Didier Dubois - 2006 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (4):251-260.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-01-13

Total views
16 ( #643,022 of 2,448,890 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #300,727 of 2,448,890 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes