The following statement from TMI website [meritocracyparty.org] is in my opinion a shooting-ourselves-in-the-foot policy; if we wish to gain any votes at all, for the few political parties we’ve actually formed -
FAQ Section - ‘Isn’t meritocracy Undemocratic’ -
"Democracy has failed to achieve the social goals that we all want. Democracy was an improvement over monarchy, but modern democracies are now stagnating and threatened with collapse. This is intrinsic government failure, and simplistic democracy is the root cause. To fix our social issues we must look beyond simplistic forms of government to create something more powerful and intelligent. Meritocracy uses democratic processes in a better way to minimize the huge downsides that have been discovered in democratic countries. Empirically, the final result of democracy has been to empower a few super-rich families and exploit the rest of us.
The system that improves on democracy will have to be undemocratic. Meritocracy fixes the bugs in democracy by using what has worked and discarding what has failed. The super-rich are willing to use their money and influence to break the government—Meritocracy is designed to prevent this. Meritocracy creates more freedom, ensures equal opportunity, achieves equal representation, and delivers the benefits of civilization to every person. Democracy has not done this and never will. "
I think TMI should re-examine this, as in - do we wish to stay in the political wilderness forever, or actually gain some votes? Who in their right mind, would actually vote for a party that threatens to take away their vote, once in power?
With a policy like this, which almost equals political suicide, we’d be lucky if anyone voted for us. Many good people made sacrifices in the past to gain the vote, which was formally only given to land-owning gentry. Is the ‘party of the 99%’ as we claim, really going to take away that voting right, so hard fought for in the first place?
When it comes to having enough knowledge on a subject to vote, voters are rarely asked to vote on a specific question, except in referendums. If any measures need to be taken to re-educate the masses on political subjects, then perhaps consider voluntary classes & hosting them ourselves. Dictatorship of ‘what should be’ rarely goes down well with the masses, if it’s seen to be enforced without discussion.
I hope this is seen as constructive criticism in order to bring meritocracy forward, so that it’s more palatable to those we intend to reach and convert.