Hierarchy – Part 1


Our society adheres to an open social stratification system; meaning society works mostly in an hierarchical order based on merits or one’s efforts. Most Governments have a head and the ministries or departments support the head. Corporations have hierarchies too. A CEO usually is at the top and the reporting structure is usually a pyramid hierarchy. Look at the family structure, there is a hierarchy as well, though sometimes not formally defined. Hierarchy in the family is dynamic. Depending on the type of task, the decision maker is sometimes the mother and at other times father. Hierarchy in all these examples is power/responsibility based.
Let us look at the Consumer side of things. There is hierarchy here too. There are membership levels like platinum, gold, silver, etc. When it comes to shareholders of a corporation, there are some who are preferentially treated; these are preferred shareholders. In transportation industry you have first class, business class, etc. On the consumer side it is mostly based on consumer’s worth.
Human society has established and found its best fit over many centuries. I wonder if there will be  peace and order without hierarchy. As long as humans are dependent on each other, resources are limited and decision making is involved, there is hierarchy. A select few make decisions for the whole. These select few who are the top of the decision chain are better decision makers. They are perceived better at decision making either because of experience or wisdom or intelligence.
There is one area where everyone is treated equal. Elections in democracy. I am talking about the popular democratic nations. Every person  has one vote. No more and  no less. Why is that the case? As in most cases some processes were started long back and have been followed without change for we humans don’t like change. Processes made sense the way they were because of limitations in past. We had tremendous advancements in the human society and most of these limitations in the past are no more limitations. We don’t have to follow the same traditions/processes. Should all be given one vote in elections? In almost every arrangement of humans there is hierarchy or preference. With all the technological advancements at hand is it not possible that elections be based on an algorithm involving multiple factors rather than simple entitlement.
So how do we aim for this election system that is algorithm based without creating a bias? There is an argument that the government should be run like a corporation and president should run it like a CEO. If country is a corporation, the voter is a shareholder. Not all shareholders are treated alike by a corporation. There are preferred shareholders. So why not preferred voters. May be  people who give better share of their salary as tax should be given preferred vote. If you pay 30% tax then your vote is counted as 1.3. If you pay 0% tax then your vote is counted 1. The rich (who may pay more tax in terms of amount) are not necessarily favored here but the person who is paying higher percentage of tax. With so much digital data and computing power we have in this age, it’s not difficult to do this computation.
It doesn’t have to be tax based alone. It can be based on multiple factors such as military service, residency status, age. The decisions made by the government have short term and long term effects. But most decisions’ effect takes place in decades that follow. So the younger people have more at stake in the decisions as it might affect them for a longer period than the old. So why not give them more preference. People in 20s get 1.1 votes, people in 30s get 1.3, in 40s get 1.4 and everybody else gets 1. The  40s group in the younger lot get preference for they have experience and wisdom to make a better decision.
Some might argue that some are disadvantaged by this. They might say that they are not getting the fair share. They are not entirely taken out of the voting system but are given lower priority. When we give the responsibility to the CEOs, Presidents, etc. we trust them to make better decisions. When we give more preference to some voters we are giving that preference to make better decision.
If we look closely at the electoral college in the united states, it has come down to giving preference to some states because of the political leaning of the states. The people in these states have become more important. Replacing electoral college with voter weighted system won’t do any bad. If  we can debate this weighted voter idea and let universities do research,  we will have a better understanding. In this world of fake news, people being angry for their economic situation a learned and measured decision is hard to come by. But a dialog is important….after all what is democracy.

4 comments On Hierarchy – Part 1

  • Pingback: Layered: Hang in there 1 | What's (in) the picture? ()

  • Pingback: WPC: Exploring Layers | Lillie-Put ()

  • I don’t think any one voter or type of voter should have more weight than another. That is the problem with the electoral college system, wherein winner takes all even if the vote is really a plurality. With winner take all, anyone on the “losing” side is automatically disenfranchised. That is why I believe there should be one person-one vote. Currently in the U.S., even without the electoral college, some people have more “voice” than others. People who can give large amounts of money to campaigns, for example, or wealthy lobby groups (such as the NRA, but there are many others). The policies preferred by these rich lobbyists and donors will prevail. Money should be taken out of politics, that is if we want to have a true democracy.

  • both are very good points. The electoral college was put another layer of check. But the electors are voting in party lines. The meaning has lost.
    I was trying to work on the quality of the decision by electorate. How can we get a well informed and measured decision out of the electorate. In this age of fake news and negative ads. How can we make the decision less emotional but more rational.
    In a family, take an example of decision making of which restaurant to go. Every body’s(adults and kids) opinion is usually given equal importance. But if the same family has to make decision of where to invest $ 10,000. you are highly unlikely to take a vote as a family. you want an educated decision.
    I consider voting to be an educated decision. It has to be educated even if there is money in the elections, if it electoral college, etc. We need to change in areas of election, like electoral college, reducing money. etc. But we also need to work on getting an educated decision from electorate.

Comments are closed.

Sliding Sidebar

About Me

About Me

Being a mom, and the love of someone’s life is all the inspiration I need to write, dream and live. I live in Dallas, TX and am also living an immigrant’s dream in the software world in my routine life. However, the best time of my life is spent blogging and writing with my team of sons.

Stay Connected

Social Profiles

Recent Posts