Add: Guangzhou, China
Tel/WhatsAPP: 086-18922710457
Website: http://www.tiandaorenxin.cn/English
Email: 592566361@qq.com
The minority is subordinate to the majority, which sounds reasonable and natural. However, there will be interest groups with large number of votes who fully control the decision-making power and completely ignore the interests of interest groups with small number of votes. The legitimate interests of groups with small number of votes will not be protected and deprived, resulting in conflicts and confusion, which will affect the development of the collective and each member. For example, the majority of black people in South Africa have promoted the formulation of policies that are very disadvantageous to white people and even forcibly deprive them of their wealth, leading to economic chaos and sharp recession. In addition, in the village cadre election implemented in the countryside, there are often large clans monopolizing power and more serious exclusion of small clans, leading to ethnic tearing apart social disharmony, and the manipulation of large shareholders in enterprises The decision to damage the interests of the company as a whole and the interests of minority shareholders also generally occurs, which leads to the company's internal disputes continue to be affected or even to decline.
There is also one person with one vote, but everyone has the same decision-making power, which sounds very fair. However, because everyone has different interests in the collective, if one person has one vote, it is easy to have the decision-making result against the overall interests of the collective and damage the interests of people with a higher ratio of interests. This is unreasonable, and it will cause problems in the collective organization, such as If the decision-making mechanism of one person one vote regardless of the number of shares is also implemented in the enterprise, then the number of ordinary employees is more, the number of small shareholders is more, and the number of votes is more. The result of voting is definitely to continue to make policies to increase wages, welfare and dividend to small shareholders, which will not only cause damage to large shareholders, but also lead to the collapse of the enterprise 。 Many countries suffer from adopting one person one vote in national decision-making, because politicians continue to give generously to the country in order to please the majority of voters to get more votes and promise to give a lot of benefits after being elected. As a result, many people wait for benefits with the right to vote and do not work actively. Finally, the economy of the country is weak and the people are lazy (for example, some Eastern European countries such as Greece, as well as Western Europe and the United States There are also large-scale groups waiting only for relief and welfare), and the whole country is suffering from poverty, inflation and social unrest (such as Venezuela). There is also a vote of the United Nations for every country. No matter the size of the country, it is obviously unreasonable. The voting results often fail to reflect the interests of the world as a whole, the major countries and the corresponding major people. Although it is made up by giving the veto power to several major countries, it still has a lot of disadvantages. Even some small countries often sell their votes to gain money and vote for whoever gives money Countries often pay for it in exchange for aid and debt free votes. There are also some people with higher cultural quality and professionalism, more rich experience, more mature ideas, and more reasonable votes, just like a professional competition evaluation vote, the authority of experts to vote must be far greater than that of ordinary audience, that is, experts to vote and score will affect the whole evaluation results in a larger proportion, regardless of quality, professional familiarity, and thinking For example, in some countries where the quality of the majority of the people is low, irrational or even poor in non discrimination, it is easy to select the people who are just eloquent and good at deceiving and fooling the people but have the ability and moral defects, and the harm caused by the result is also very great. It can be seen that the system of one person one vote seems fair, but it has many disadvantages. It is not universal, and it cannot and is not suitable for popularization and application as a universal value (by the way, some immature youth should not be easily confused by some immature thoughts and force all aspects of society to implement one person one vote). Therefore, it is suggested to refer to the following methods to solve the problems existing in the traditional democratic decision-making mechanism: A) Instead of voting and making decisions based on one vote for one person, different votes can be given according to the contributions to tax and social construction, the size of asset interests, education level, professional level, position level and age. The best votes for the relief recipients are lower than those of normal people because their contributions to society are negative, and they have committed crimes against collective interests such as corruption Only in this way can the decision-making result better reflect and protect the collective interests and everyone's legitimate interests; B） Each person's vote can be cut into multiple parts and then cast to different candidates and decision-making options, which can more truly and fully reflect everyone's intention. Because each person does not support a certain option of a certain person 100%, generally there will be a feeling that one is the best, the other is good, and the other is good; C) We can also consider to give you a negative number of votes, that is, a reverse ballot, similar to a veto, so that you can exercise this veto and deduct points for candidates and decision-making options that you don't like very much, and further prevent their election;
D) Adopt different groups to vote properly to protect the interests of each group and each shareholder group. When voting on a decision, not only the overall collective support rate is required to be high, but also the support rate is required to be high within the small groups with a small number of votes and the small shareholder group with a small share voting right (for example, the rural election mentioned above can be stipulated that not only the whole village is required to pass, but also the village is required to pass It is also passed within the scope of small clans), so it is impossible to pass decisions that are unfavorable for small groups and small shareholders. Compared with the cumulative voting system that has been widely used before (in fact, it is also similar to allowing everyone to split the votes on hand into multiple pieces and vote for multiple candidates and options, which is also conducive to ensuring that small group small shareholders can promote as many candidates and options as possible to be elected when more than one person and multiple options will be elected), different regions and different industries are given a certain amount of consideration The number of candidates (for example, the number of candidates in different regions and different industries will be allocated in the parliamentary election, and the electoral college system is also adopted in the American election, i.e., each state has different votes corresponding to the factors of population and economy, and then the one with high support in the state will have the votes of the whole state so that the interests of each state can be guaranteed), multiple clans or political parties will take turns to sit in power (such as the United Arab Emirates It is more beneficial to protect the interests of various groups and shareholder groups. Of course, there are disadvantages in this method, that is, some groups deliberately fail to pass decisions that are beneficial to the whole group for their own interests. For this reason, we can set the proportion of affirmative votes that need to be passed within each group and the group of shareholders to be less than 50%, for example, 30%. It is suggested that the proportion of affirmative votes should be the same (but not more than 50%) as that of the group as a whole It is better to determine the proportion without differences, which should be relatively avoided. (for the voting system, there are more ideas and more detailed explanations in the article "series improvement of voting system" written by me more than ten years ago. See http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_ 89a44d1601012 mrx.html ) To be continued........
