The Multiple Vote of Nevil Shute

[Deleted member 1]

In this thread I would like to discuss a political idea that, over time, I have come to believe would be more effective at dealing with the issues than Republics than almost anything else we could now prepare, and which would tend to mitigate their negative effects. It was used to a limited extent in some European countries starting in the 1890s (particularly Belgium), and was popularised by Nevil Shute, the famous author of "On the Beach", whose really good works are actually In the Wet and Round the Bend.

Nevil Shute was, despite the hijacking of On the Beach by leftist anti-nuclear activists, actually something of a modern, practical conservative but committed monarchist, a true believer in the unity of the Dominions and Britain, and of course a very distinguished aeronautical engineer on "The Capitalist Airship", the R.100, with Barnes Wallis, and several later projects in the 1930s.

In In the Wet, Shute imagines a future in which the Dominions have adopted the Multiple Vote, and ultimately the Queen flees a socialist Britain to force it (by the popular affection of the common people for Her) to adopt the Multiple Vote as well. The hero of the story, David 'Nigg*r' Anderson (note--this is reproduced for authenticity from the original in which the name is presented as a nickname which Squadron Leader Anderson does not object to, and in fact actively introduces himself by that nickname, being a quadroom with indigenous Australian blood, showing his easygoing disposition in which he doesn't get offended--he is a perfectly accomplished Three Vote Man with a rank equivalent to OF-3, after all), a decorated member of the Royal Australian Air Force, uses his indigenous Australian sixth sense or instinct to dream the threat of a bomb and disarm it in midair on his aircraft as he executes the Queen's perilous escape from the socialist government in Britain.

The central plot of the book is the need for the Multiple Vote to combat socialism and correct the problems of modern democracies (both republics and constitutional monarchies). To summarise the multiple vote:

• The first vote is given to every citizen on reaching the age of 21.
• The second vote is for university graduates and commissioned military officers.
• The third vote is earned after living and working abroad for at least two years.
• The fourth vote is for raising two children to the age of fourteen without divorcing.
• The fifth vote is for earning at least £5000 in the year before the election. (This is a pretty elite-level income. A newly-built three-bedroom house, we are told, costs four or five thousand Australian pounds.)
• The sixth vote is for officials in any of the recognized Christian churches.
• The seventh vote is given only at the discretion of the monarch. (At the novel’s climax our hero, a “three-vote man”, saves the Queen’s life, earning the rare and prestigious seventh vote.)

In the story the Multiple Vote began in West Australia, to wit:

“Aw, look,” said David. “West Australia was walking away with everything. We got a totally different sort of politician when we got the multiple vote. Before that, when it was one man one vote, the politicians were all tub-thumping nonentities and union bosses. Sensible people didn’t stand for parliament, and if they stood they didn’t get in. When we got multiple voting we got a better class of politician altogether, people who got elected by sensible voters.” He paused. “Before that when a man got elected to the Legislative Assembly, he was an engine driver or a dock labourer, maybe. He got made a Minister and top man of a Government department. Well, he couldn’t do a thing. The civil servants had him all wrapped up, because he didn’t know anything.”

“And after the multiple voting came in, was it different?”

“My word,” said the Australian. “We got some real men in charge. Did the Civil Service catch a cold! Half of them were out on their ear within a year, and then West Australia started getting all the coal and all the industry away from New South Wales and Victoria. And then these chaps who had been running West Australia started to get into Canberra. In 1973, when the multiple vote came in for the whole country, sixty per cent of the Federal Cabinet were West Australians. It got so they were running every bloody thing.”

“Because they were better people?” asked the captain.

“That’s right.”

The essential idea is to increase the number of ballots as a reward for obviously meritorious accomplishments across the political spectrum which are fixed and can't be altered by the Government, which serve to actually reward more socially acceptable people with more political power, while still maintaining universal suffrage. This, then, would counterbalance the tendency of mob rule which we see to grow stronger and stronger in modern western democracies, and promote accomplishment as a legitimate and straightforward way of improving one's political power.

 

[Lightershoulders]

The main problem with this is who gets to decide what warrants rewarding an extra vote?

I myself am a god fearing man, but I know that because I am LDS, it would be unlikely for me to qualify for the religious vote in the given scenario (Depending on what is deemed as an "Offical").

I myself would only be a two vote, (older than 21, and I was deployed for longer than 2 years overseas). However I am not a commissioned officer nor a university/college graduate.

Claims of discrimination could easily be thrown about, I could make the argument that officers already recieve better perks than enlisted, and should get that vote. Would it make sense? No*. But enough people could get behind it to make it a pet issue.

*The reason for no, is that it is obvious that that vote is for education, and Officer training (at least modern) requires college level education regardless.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Well, if you knew it was important to gaining a third vote would you have worked for a degree already? I think the answer is that the votes would have to be set based on, perhaps not that list, but a similar one which was intended to be completely impartial, and based on obvious metrics a society could collectively agree meant responsibility. I'd only have two or possibly three (depending on the exact translation of that income, and how household income counts) votes myself at the moment, though I do admit to having a very clear track to getting to 4 votes -- and being unable to exceed that except, of course, if I earned the Sovereign's favour. In a somewhat further out possibility, raising two children would provide a fifth. So it would be plausible for any educated professional to probably get five votes, and then a sixth if you did something spectacular. The religious official one would of course have to be omitted or radically different in the United States--but our lack of respect for religious life is a serious issue in the US, and perhaps that is something that needs to change.

 

[Lightershoulders]

Well, if you knew it was important to gaining a third vote would you have worked for a degree already?

With what money? A scholarship right out of highschool I wouldn't have been able to take advantage of?

I came from a poor family, and spent the vast majority of my adult life either taking care of a grandmother with Alzheimer's or in the military.

Sometimes, it's not a matter of "Is this person better?" but "Who actually contributes to society?"

And yet I can tell you I am worth at least three of those gender studies collage students with my skill set.

I think the answer is that the votes would have to be set based on, perhaps not that list, but a similar one which was intended to be completely impartial, and based on obvious metrics a society could collectively agree meant responsibility.

And who decides this?

Who decides what is and is not good for society, what is impartial?

The religious official one would of course have to be omitted or radically different in the United States--but our lack of respect for religious life is a serious issue in the US, and perhaps that is something that needs to change.

But why should religion get a vote at all? The separation of church and state is very important.

I do agree that the lack of respect for religion is an issue, one I have literally had gotten in fist fights over (I didn't start them) but those fist fights are exactly why I cherish freedom of religion. I can choose my religion, no one can force me to conform to a belief I do not agree with.

And make no mistake, those who would get violent over religion are the same who would try to force their faith on you.

Atheists are meh. They push their lack of faith just like any other religion, so I just lump them in thesame category.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Well, I understand your thoughts on the matter, @Lightershoulders. I know some people are constrained in opportunity. In the original Belgian system it was based on wealth and land only. Adding education and foreign experience was meant by Shute precisely to avoid the trap of saying only a person’s effort determines their wealth, there are other metrics for success—and University os frankly far less relevant than it was in the 1950s for this, but that’s also something we truly need to fix.

The changes themselves would certainly have to come about either in the Commonwealth by the Sovereign, or in the US by constitutional amendment. I don’t think Shute’s list is necessarily the best one, but that does at least ask fundamental questions about what we should actually value and reward as a society—and whether or not until your dying day nothing you do should change the level of influence you have over the policy of your country.

 

[Deleted member 1]

In the Wet, by Nevil Shute -- in the interests of providing the original source material, I created a thread for the book, as it is now in the public domain. It's a quite entertaining read.