"Your vote is worth the same as theirs."

 And a major problem with this primarily logical and correct thinking

Among the many weaknesses of a modern democratic system is the equivalence of importance of the individual vote, in which people with disparate levels of intelligence, most directly reflected in levels of general and technical knowledge, but also and especially in capacity for moral discernment, have exactly the same voting power. In other words, the vote of a chronically ignorant or foolish person is worth the same as the vote of another person who is in a completely opposite intellectual situation. But this is not the most correct way, because there should be a way to correctly systematize these individual differences and establish a differentiation in the weight of the vote at decisive moments, such as in elections or plebiscites; after all, the opinions of those who develop them in a more rationally adequate way are worth more than those who do not. It's quite simple. It would be the fairest thing. This would be yet another mechanism to control the most natural fallacy of democracy, which can turn it into a dystopia I've termed "democracism," that is, systematically considering the "opinion of a majority" as the "most correct opinion."

But there's a potentially major problem that hinders the practical viability of this reasoning, which would be, in a realistic scenario, the criteria used by those in power and motivated to establish these changes...

What I mentioned above seems to me the most correct: to have the criterion of rationality or common sense as the most important, as it is the most logically relevant in this discussion. However, it seems common, at least to me, to see on social media those who criticize the established equalization of individual voting power either not considering this criterion or leaving it vague about what it would be... It also seems common for many, driven by educationalist beliefs, to point to the level of "education" achieved as the most important criterion in this hypothetical change. However, being more "educated," precisely in the sense of having more years of schooling or being at higher levels in the hierarchy of the educational system, is far from automatically reflecting an individual's level of common sense. And this seems to be the most common thought: if the equalization of individual voting power is to be ended, then it should be done between those with and without a degree. But this is not just my opinion or supposed prejudice against academia, because, in fact, among the "more educated," there is a significant portion that, to begin with, should not have been awarded degrees or should not have been awarded degrees in the areas in which they "specialized." And that's without even getting into the capacity for moral. discernment. And this is especially true in the humanities, dominated by cliques of pseudoscientists and/or pseudo-intellectuals extremely biased to the left on the political-ideological spectrum. Therefore, ideally speaking, if the end of the equalization of individual voting power were instituted, the most important thing would not be to give more weight to the vote of those who "studied more" because, in reality, often this "studying more" does not mean that the person has acquired more wisdom, quite the opposite... Returning to the conclusive redundancy of this text, the ideal would be, based on a generalized analysis of people's rational capacity, better reflected in values, beliefs, and behaviors in the medium and long term, that the establishment of unequal weight to the individual vote be based on this criterion and not on any other less precise criterion for evaluating the capacities specifically required in this context, such as the superficiality of a typical academic "education"...

But how would that work??

If I have demonstrated, over time, that I am more sensible, the weight of my vote should be worth... twice or more the weight of a vote from someone who proves to be quite reckless. However, another major problem with the practical viability of this change is that there simply isn't any social system for evaluating these abilities and applying them in real political contexts, because no one has ever really thought about creating something like that, due to the enormous popularity of myths about human morality and intelligence that continue to perpetuate themselves as absolute truths of common sense, such as the idea that everyone has the same potential for free will... As a result, before even thinking about establishing a disparity in individual voting power, it would be necessary to create a system that could evaluate the required abilities; in other words, literally to create a new evaluative and selective culture of merit, and I have already written about this, that this meritocracy proposal would also be ideal in any type of professional evaluation, since it is precisely the absence of a filter for rationality and, therefore, also moral discernment, that leads to many professionals of very poor quality..and acting in the most diverse branches of social life and causing all sorts of harm. But for this to become possible, the existing social system itself would first have to be in the hands of precisely the most rationally competent, an ideal scenario quite distant from our current reality.

Sobre o cinismo da "esquerda" ao falar sobre desinformação, "fake news" e democracia/About the cynicism of the "left" when talking about disinformation, "fake news" and democracy

 Se existem redes articuladas de contas em plataformas digitais espalhando notícias falsas e desinformação associadas a partidos e figuras de "direita" no Brasil e no exterior, também existe algo parecido e, até mais profundo ou pior, que tem sido protagonizado pela "esquerda", que é o aparelhamento ideológico de instituições e setores, como a cultura, a educação e o governo, usando-os como meios de doutrinação de suas crenças e narrativas (frequentemente desviantes da razão e dos fatos) e de imposição de suas políticas supostamente bem intencionadas, inspiradas pela Escola de Frankfurt, que foi uma organização de intelectuais (em sua maioria, judeus), na Alemanha dos anos 20 do século passado, e que teve como objetivo principal, aparentemente, produzir trabalhos de crítica social aos valores burgueses e ao sistema capitalista. Mas, então, tem sido adotada como meio para subverter a "velha ordem', aplicando o método da hegemonia cultural de Antonio Gramsci, de tomar o poder pela cultura, de maneira progressiva, ao invés de fazê-lo por uma revolução popular. 

Portanto, parece cinismo e hipocrisia, pessoas ditas de "esquerda" acusarem de "fakes news", desinformação e tentativa de golpe, aqueles mais à direita, mesmo que não sejam inverdades, se elas mesmas estão participando ativamente na promoção de um golpe de longo prazo contra a civilização ocidental e cujas consequências desastrosas nós já estamos testemunhando nessa terceira década de século XXI, tal como a crescente substituição demográfica de populações de raça branca de países como os EUA e os da Europa Ocidental, em andamento, resultado da dominação discursiva e política de suas ideologias que se baseiam em um predomínio de falácias morais e pseudociência ("do bem"), e a subversão de valores básicos ao funcionamento de uma sociedade, tal como pelo relativismo da verdade, que tem resultado, por exemplo, no ativismo radical trans...

Justiça social??

Gramsci, em sua teoria sobre a hegemonia cultural, apontou, corretamente, que a "elite burguesa" também usa a cultura como um meio para convencer ou coagir as "massas" a se tornarem submissas ao seu domínio. E que, em um mundo cada vez mais dominado pelo sistema capitalista, essa via seria a mais adequada para tomar o poder, provavelmente buscando reverter essa situação. Mas o resultado da adoção de sua teoria como instrumentalização intelectual e política não tem sido o de promover justiça social, mas de também usá-la como discurso de convencimento ou coerção e que, na prática, busca ampliar seus poderes dentro do sistema que dizem combater.E lembrando sempre que a justiça não é possível, idealmente, sem a busca da verdade objetiva e imparcial.

"Defesa pela democracia"?? 

"A esquerda" adora encher a boca para falar que "defende a democracia".

Mas que democracia é essa que diz defender?? 

Será que defende pela democracia em Cuba, Venezuela, Coreia do Norte, China ou Rússia??? 

Pois se a resposta for positiva, então, deveria se colocar CONTRA e não a favor dos respectivos governos desses países ...

Já, em sociedades ocidentais, que tipo de "democracia" a "esquerda" defende?? 

Por uma democracia com pouca ou nula participação popular e em que apenas as políticas ou decisões do seu agrado que são consideradas "democráticas"?? 

Tal como impor um modelo "multicultural" ("americanizado") de sociedade, com muita imigração sem controle, sem consultar a população e sem se basear em evidências concretas para ratificá-la como a melhor medida?? (Se as evidências existentes, históricas, de experiências multiculturais, ratificam o oposto)

Ou impor, sem qualquer consulta popular, medidas tão frouxas de combate ao crime que deixam a entender que está "do lado do bandido" e não do trabalhador e/ou do cidadão cumpridor das leis???

Também poderia ser pela imposição de uma legislação que busca limitar de maneira significativa a liberdade de expressão de acordo com o que considera "ofensivo" ou "verdadeiro"??

É essa democracia de partido e ideologia únicos, em boa parte, autoritária e irracional, que essa "esquerda" defende?? 

About the cynicism of the "left" when talking about disinformation, "fake news" and democracy

If there are articulated networks of accounts on digital platforms spreading fake news and disinformation associated with "right-wing" parties and figures in Brazil and abroad, there is also something similar and, even deeper or worse, that has been carried out by the "left", which is the ideological rigging of institutions and sectors, such as culture, education and government, using them as means of indoctrinating their beliefs and narratives (often deviating from reason and facts) and imposing their supposedly well-intentioned policies , inspired by the Frankfurt School, which was an organization of intellectuals (mostly Jews) in Germany in the 20s of the last century, and whose main objective, apparently, was to produce works of social criticism of bourgeois values and the capitalist system. But then it has been adopted as a means of subverting the 'old order', applying Antonio Gramsci's method of cultural hegemony, of taking power through culture, in a progressive manner, rather than by a popular revolution.

Therefore, it seems cynicism and hypocrisy, for people called "leftists" to accuse those more on the right of "fake news", disinformation and attempted coups, even if they are not untrue, if they themselves are actively participating in the promotion of a long-term coup against Western civilization and whose disastrous consequences we are already witnessing in this third decade of the 21st century, like as the growing demographic replacement of white populations in countries such as the USA and Western Europe, in progress, as a result of hegemony of its ideologies that are based on a predominance of moral fallacies and pseudoscience ("of good"), and the subversion of basic values to the functioning of a society, such as through the relativism of truth, which has resulted, for example, in radical trans activism...

Social justice??

Gramsci, in his theory on cultural hegemony, correctly pointed out that the "bourgeois elite" also uses culture as a means to convince or coerce the "masses" into becoming submissive to their rule. And that, in a world increasingly dominated by the capitalist system, this route would be the most appropriate way to take power, probably seeking to reverse this situation. But the result of adopting their theory as an intellectual and political instrumentation has not been to promote social justice, but to also use it as a discourse of persuasion or coercion and which, in practice, seeks to expand their powers within the system they claim to combat.And always remembering that justice is not possible, ideally, without the search for objective and impartial truth.

"Defense for democracy"??

"The left" loves to talk about "defending democracy".

But what kind of democracy do you claim to defend?

Do you defend democracy in Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China or Russia???

Because if the answer is positive, then you should be AGAINST and not in favor of the respective governments of these countries...

Now, in Western societies, what kind of "democracy" does the "left" defend?

For a democracy with little or no popular participation and in which only policies or decisions to their liking are considered "democratic"??

Such as imposing a "multicultural" ("Americanized") model of society, with a lot of uncontrolled immigration, without consulting the population and without being based on concrete evidence to ratify it as the best measure? (If existing historical evidence of multicultural experiences confirms the opposite)

Or impose, without any popular consultation, such lax measures to combat crime that they imply that it is "on the side of the criminal" and not on the side of the worker and/or the law-abiding citizen???

Could it also be through the imposition of legislation that seeks to significantly limit freedom of expression according to what is considered "offensive" or "true"?

Is this democracy of a single party and ideology, largely authoritarian and irrational, that this "left" defends?

Example of how to prevent participatory democracy from turning into democracism

We live in representative democracies in which politicians supposedly represent the interests of the population. The ideal, however, would be for democracy to be more participatory, that is, for it to have greater, more direct participation by citizens, which would happen mainly through plebiscites, even more so if the political class, in representative democratic regimes, tends to represent and defending their own interests and not prioritizing the interests, or rather, the well-being of the population. But, there is another caveat, as a participatory democracy can easily slip into democracism, a dystopia of democracy itself in which the opinion of the majority starts to be treated as law, regardless of whether it is more right or not, in moral and intellectual terms.

So, thinking of a way to prevent the search for improving democracy from ending up having the opposite effect, I propose here a model of plebiscite within a scenario of full or participatory democracy. In this model, popular participation will not be alone, because together with specialists (in fact) and specific groups that are more interested, they will also have voting power, even to maintain a greater balance. And, to establish this parity, the voting power of both must be relatively equivalent to the popular vote. In this way, the opinion of a majority will have to be compared with the opinion of the minority most interested in the topic and also with the opinion of experts, those who generally know more about it.

Example: a plebiscite to determine whether children with gender dysphoria should be allowed to "transition" to their desired sex.

Popular vote: represents 50% with 100% agreement

Expert vote: represents 30% with 100% agreement

Interest group vote: represents 20% with 100% agreement

So, if 70% of the population is against, 60% of experts and 40% of the interest population, it would look more or less like this, if the expert and interest group votes represent 50% of the total votes, in the first case it will be 60 out of 30 % and the second 40 of 20%, obtaining results, respectively, 18% and 8% and, together, making up 26% of the total votes against. These will finally be added to the popular vote: 70 of 50% = 53%. 53 + 26 = 61% votes against the proposed measure. In this example, the popular vote weighed more. But it may happen that the votes of experts and interest groups make a difference...

This is in a scenario where the majority of proposals can be put to a vote.