Vote Killing Policies That Need Re-examined


Meritocracy is about the most meritorious - that much is incontestible; sorry to say. As much as it’s nice to please people, you don’t want to be offering something just because it sounds nice. A meritocracy implies we absolutely trust those who’ve proven themselves through their efforts. Anyone who disagrees that meritocracy is about merit, isn’t actually a meritocrat. And so you’d have to pass exams (within the new system) to vote.

Unearned votes are the mark of the failed Liberal system. We don’t want the rule of the ignorant anymore. That’s what meritocracy is fundamentally about! That HAS TO BE what it’s about. Otherwise you are just defending the old system and clinging onto it. We don’t WANT the old system to survive! We don’t want any of its signs.

As for the process of fact-checking: it’s fundamentally a boring job to go over what others have said and scrutinize every detail. That won’t be interesting enough to work. Instead of some externalized system, we use our own intelligence to understand how meritorious someone is. The factual understandings and figures fall under careful scrutiny with specific process (like the Labour 2017 Manifesto); but in general terms no, you wouldn’t be watching everything someone else said - that’s far too ineffective and boring, and antithesis to providing more merit yourself!

You don’t NEED participation from voters to make something to work. That’s the whole point of a meritocracy. You attract only the people willing to put in 110%, or 1000% of the effort. There’s no need to appeal to anything but real, hard work and effort towards a better society.

You don’t want to assign boring research tasks or maintenance tasks. You want people to do whatever they want to do for the cause - they must be inspired. Not held back by the same-old, same-old processes and language. Without a programming team, we’re stuck with this website, but there are tools for collective team work.


Nobody here has suggested that Meritocracy be diluted to the point where it’s just a sound-bite [like Theresa May’s idea of it] just in order to gain votes. However, working within a democracy means allowing people to vote, whether you think they’re too stupid, or not.

My own opinion is that the majority are not stupid & to suggest so is simply an insult to most voter’s intelligence. They may have made some crazy choices of late, but mostly these have been a protest vote against a system that has over-looked their wants & needs, or a wake-up call to the party they normally vote for.

Other forms of voting that seem irrational from the outside are to do with tactical voting, to prevent x,y or z from happening. There are some who do actually believe every word of the msm of course, there’s no denying those type of voters do exist, but they’re in the minority.

There’s been various positive ideas to re-educate voters politically using voluntary methods put forward here. As with raising the bar on the 100% Inheritance Tax threshold to allow the electorate to get used to the idea, then lowering the threshold later when majority support is for it, a little tweaking in the introduction of radical ideas would not go amiss. That’s all that’s been suggested.

I would also suggest supporters of a political party would actually like to see that party gain office, as it’s much easier to change the system once you’re inside it. The rare case of UKIP bringing forth Brexit with one elected MP & 2/3 in the European Parliament is almost unique. It also seems that most previous UKIP voters will abandon them, now that they’ve reached their main goal. But we’ll see how GE17 pans out …

By all means don’t compromise on fundamental beliefs, but neither be too rigid on the best way to reach those lofty goals. Or in short, don’t make yourself completely un-electable from the outset.

If you insist on being the party who will make voters take an ‘intelligence’ test and/or take away the public’s right to vote, all I can say is “good luck with that.”


I completely agree that the first policy you stated needs redone. The wording of it is the biggest problem. It is contradictory on itself; it is saying democracies are too prone to failure, but a the same time it is proposing that what we want to implement is another democracy. The scope is too broad as democracies range into four typical categories: Indirect, Direct, Popular, and Elitism. What exactly are we saying is the bad democracies? And which are we promoting? I think it would be best to abstain from calling into question the success and failures of democracy in general, and instead state that we are advocating a democracy based on merit. Although I am against democracies in general (I want a meritocratic elitism government), I believe this would be more beneficial than what is currently stated.

Now I am going to go off topic a bit here: What is really killing votes in my opinion is the lack of push in the United States. Prior to doing research, I never even heard of this party or anything about it; that is bad, especially since I am heavy into politics. I actually consider this a secondary party because of how small it is. But we can use this to our advantage, which I will elaborate on after I explain why the focus should be the United States. The United Sates voter base is very “unintelligent” which can be used heavily in our favor if used correctly. Not to mention the United States populous is extremely stubborn. Ideologies that work overseas and in Europe very rarely get incorporated into the States because everybody here sees it as different and is immediately against it. Great American ignorance. If the United States is the focus points of the meritocratic parties efforts, and meritocracy takes over in the United States (hypothetically) then the chances of other countries change based off the outcome of how the United States turns out will significantly increase. If say the UK gets converted to meritocracy, I would be willing to place my life on the line saying that the United States will not adopt that policy.

The strategy that should dominate in pushing meritocracy in the United States is using this party as a secondary party. This will draw less “hate” towards us while also allowing politicians to hold our beliefs in addition to their main party (Republican or Democrat). It will also be easier for us to gain the voting edge in the senate and house because a lot of our politicians will be gone under-radar as belonging to our party. If this ends up happening, this party will have 2 options it could take. For the time being, I will only state one (the one I am not in favor of), the party will have the opportunity to shake up the entire political scale and make it a three party system, or even dethrone one of the two ruling parties.


Thanks for your input & take on it Homboi_Jesus.

As far as I know the ‘Meritocracy Party USA’ only exists as a Facebook page or a website thus far; but not to put down anyone’s efforts, there’s good reasons for that:

I believe the registering of a party over there depends on getting a percentage of vote pledges before you can put in the application. So even if it’s only one percent of vote pledges needed from the registered electorate in a single state, say the size of Texas, that’s a huge number of people to convince just for starters. Thus to register a party across 52 states would be a monumental task. I did urge people in the past to think of tackling it one state at a time.

Another way to make indirect in-roads that an American friend suggested was to use lobby groups, or even form one, which he suggested are very influential & perhaps easier to set-up officially.

Not knowing the full ins & outs of the American political system, I can only wish you luck in whatever way anyone wishes to tackle these huge problems, as there seems no easy or straightforward route to success. But, “where there’s a will, there’s a way!”