We understand that the Fair Choice represents something new and unfamiliar, something that certain people find threatening. I spent fifteen years refraining from discussing this idea because I knew it would provoke a strong reaction from specific political types. But the Fair Choice is an idea whose time has arrived. These are in a real sense radical times, when many of us have a weary sense that there has been little wisdom and originality shown by our leaders for a long time. Many of us feel that, if we do not take bold and intelligent steps soon, we may not have another chance in our lifetimes.
The Fair Choice Society provides a sane and compassionate reform that offers the greatest social benefit for the least sacrifice.
They should not be deprived of their vote. The Fair Choice simply allows that less prosperous citizens have a proportionately clearer voice when it comes to the election of political leaders. This clearer voice must inevitably encourage their greater participation in the political process. For those who want all citizens except the wealthiest to remain relatively silent, the Fair Choice is a threat. For those who believe that a sense of belonging and a broad participation in the political process will nurture a stronger, fairer and more stable society, the Fair Choice holds many attractions.
The Fair Choice acknowledges the positive aspects of wealth and the desire of most individuals to retain the fruit of their efforts. But why should undiluted political influence be an automatic accessory of wealth? Some people will always be less wealthy that others. Why should they have less influence, as individuals, on the governance of their society?
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The Fair Choice addresses individuals, not classes or "races". As an individual grows poorer, his or her vote would carry proportionately more weight. Why should it be otherwise? His or her needs are being less well met by society. As an individual grows more prosperous, his or her vote would carry proportionately less weight. Why should it be otherwise? His or her needs are already being well met by society.
No one would ever lose their vote, not even the richest captain of industry. But the Fair Choice turns a compassionate gaze on the alienated, materially-disadvantaged. It does not offer such people more money. It does not allow them to displace others. It does, however, compel elected officials to pay them greater heed.
The argument that the poor can always be counted on to vote for the interests of the rich is an old one and evidence can be advanced both for and against it. But it is important to appreciate that the fundamental objective of the Fair Choice is the involvement of the whole citizenry in the political process. Sullen alienation within a population is damaging to a nation's economy and attractive only to tyrants. Even if poorer people consistently and foolishly voted against their own material interests, the Fair Choice would result in a prouder, more participatory society.
But the evolution of European-based cultures has gradually tended towards an increase in the influence of the less wealthy. And the franchise has gradually broadened during these centuries. There's every reason to suppose these two phenomena are connected: as more people were able to vote, their votes tended to work towards the betterment of their circumstances. The Fair Choice would continue and possibly accelerate that historical process.
This is, of course, the opposite fear from the one previously expressed and, indeed, it would be a well grounded fear if the Fair Choice empowered people to rob others' wealth. The Fair Choice, though, does nothing of the kind. It empowers the votes of the otherwise less materially powerful -- not just the poorest -- so that they know themselves to be significant participants in the political life of their nation, and it assures that elected representatives pay them careful heed. The result would be socially-conscious legislation.
An improbable development, but one the Fair Choice provides for, would see enough poor voters elect enough representatives who were willing to enact legislation that would somehow directly enrich these voters at the expense of the previously wealthy. The Fair Choice would then reverse the previous status quo. Each newly wealthy citizen would now have a less weighted vote, while each formerly wealthy person would have a more weighted vote.
It is by no means certain, though, that the pursuit of money lies at the center of every citizen's soul. The driven individuals who work day and night to accumulate wealth may not be just like everyone else but somehow smarter. Their motivations may be many and may include neurotic greed and various insecurities -- poor qualifications for the political influence that their money buys, directly or indirectly. To be sure, the average citizen certainly wants a reasonable standard of living as measured against his more prosperous fellows. But personal dignity, a sense of belonging and a sense of true influence and participation in the society as a whole, appears to be important to the average citizen. These less tangible but more compelling satisfactions are those first addressed by the Fair Choice.
The objective of the Fair Choice is not some abstract platonic notion of perfection, but a simple voting reform that would lead to a profoundly fairer society.
Our current technology (bank statements/income tax forms) already provide the basis for assessing wealth and provide penalties for non-disclosure.
The Fair Choice would offer little incentive to individuals to cheat: it does not determine one's taxes, only one's voting power. Those who slip through the net and manage to appear as paupers while actually controlling millions would risk much to gain an extra vote or two.
A common misconceptions about the Fair Choice is that it is concerned with issues of class. When we resort, as we do, to shorthand phrases such as "the poor" or "the rich", we reinforce these misconceptions. But again, the Fair Choice does not address any class or group: it addresses only individuals and the individual citizen's prosperity, contentment, sense of empowerment or lack of these.
Far from encouraging class war, the Fair Choice would nurture a more cohesive society in which all members shared a sense of influence in public affairs.
The Fair Choice is at its most pragmatic a proposal for voting reform. As such, it poses little threat of enlarging government. Even the mechanisms for determining approximate individual wealth are already largely in place.
If anything, the Fair Choice might lead in time to small government. Poor people often have a great deal of experience with violence, crime, ignorance, boredom, and dysfunctional behavior. Who better to vote for the representatives who understand these problems? Who better to vote for the representatives who would enact truly effective street-wise legislation, rather than simply create more departments and spend more money?
That's right. That's right. The Fair Choice does not propose to dynamite legislatures. It does not propose to execute heads of state, burn the wealthy in the town squares or give every poor person a million dollars. It does not propose increases or reduction in taxes, universal day care or subsidies to "strategic" industries. It does set a system in place that permits change. Not overnight, not in one year. But gradual and assimilable change within our existing democratic structures, change that will remain in effect for the long term.
Perhaps those with more should have much to say in governance. Perhaps their interests are as important to the nation as the interests of those with less. The Fair Choice is silent on the matter. It addresses only this fact: a healthy nation involves all its citizens and provides that those with more do not overwhelm those with less.
The Fair Choice is silent on the matter, but takes this to be a fundamental truth: human society can and does change. The Fair Choice will facilitate that process.
