Thursday, August 13, 2026

UPDATED: An Immodest (And Deeply Offensive) Proposal

 

Accountability is a strange thing these days. People "take responsibility" when the public finds out they did something wrong, but very rarely do any consequences ensue. Errant public officials keep their positions, CEOs often maintain their jobs,  and celebrities simply say "That's not who I am," when caught in a racist or ill-advised social post that earns widespread condemnation from the online community. True accountability is exceedingly rare.

I suspect that for many of the monied amongst us, the very concept of accountability is an irritant, foisted upon them by their 'lessers'. Oh, how they must chafe under the rules of democracy, where every citizen has a potential voice (should they choose to vote) in the rules that govern them. It doesn't seem fair that the wealthy vote, at least in theory, carries only the same weight as everyone else's. Surely a change is needed so that accountability can be set on their terms.

At least that's the view of people like Shopify's Tobias Lutke. His premise is a simple one: voting rights should be tied to one's productivity,

suggesting that seniors and Canadians living in poverty should be denied the vote.

No liberal democracy has experimented with disenfranchising what in Canada would amount to more than 12 million people, or close to one-third of the total population.

In posts on X, Lütke had these words for Canada’s seniors: “New deal,” he wrote. “When you get your pension deal it’s locked in and guaranteed. But now you are a dependent and that means no voting, just like dependents under age. Enjoy the deal, let people with a stake in the future decide.”

As a senior, I find the idea that we have no stake in the future of our country to be deeply offensive. It essentially stereotypes us as layabouts living off the fat of the land, idlers who have nothing useful to offer or say about the policies and direction of Canada. Institutional memory seems to offend, perhaps even frighten, Lutke.

However, his ideas don't stop with simple disenfranchisement. He also says that the wealthier one is, the more votes one should have. He

endorsed a voting system floated by former banker Eric Thor that would see ballots weighted “proportional to the level of income tax you pay.” The system would be progressive and proportional, capped at five votes for those who pay $500,000 a year or more, while those who pay no income tax would not receive a vote. Lutke called it “good,” noting it would “reward productive people with leverage.”

What’s disturbing isn’t just the idea itself — a voting system that distributes ballots based on income tax paid — but also that publicly praising it adds to the public register an approach to self-government that reduces people to their perceived economic value. The next leap, which is barely a skip, is that the government should get out of the way and let the rich lead us all towards a libertarian utopia free from state regulation or any commitment to caring for those who are unable or unwilling to be “builders,” to use the parlance of tech types.

Democracy is imperfect and always evolving. Some shun their civic responsibility, evidenced by perennially poor turnouts at the ballot box. In a democracy, that is their choice, just as it is their right to vote for parties and ideas that some of us may not like. However, all of that is a far cry from what oligarchs like Lutke are suggesting. 

Such individuals may not like democratic accountability, but if they must have it, they want it set on their terms. One has merely to look at people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg to see where that would lead.

UPDATE: If you would like to know more about Shopify and Mr. Lutke, click here.

4 comments:

  1. . He endorsed a voting system floated by former banker Eric Thor that would see ballots weighted “proportional to the level of income tax you pay.”

    Well, it is an almost novel idea[1] and different from the USA where voting really does not matter as long as you spend your money in bribes. Lutke, is proposing an oligarchy with overt discrimination against older or poor citizens. He may be a good entrepreneur or businessman; he looks like a political idiot.

    Shute, at least, had some imagination.

    1. Nevil Shute had a multiple vote system in his novel "In the Wet".
    The Seven-Vote SystemIn the society depicted in the novel, a person receives one basic vote as a right of citizenship, and can earn up to six additional votes based on specific life achievements:

    First Vote: The basic universal franchise given to every citizen.

    Second Vote: Awarded for educational qualifications (a university degree or a military commission).

    Third Vote: Awarded for working and living in a foreign or overseas country for a minimum of two years.

    Fourth Vote: Awarded for successfully raising two children to age 14 without getting a divorce.

    Fifth Vote: The achievement/income vote, given if a person's personal earned income exceeds a high threshold (specified as £5,000 a year in the context of the book's setting).

    Sixth Vote: Awarded for being an official or holding a recognized position in a Christian church.

    Seventh Vote: A special discretionary vote awarded directly by the monarch for exceptional merit or courage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not familiar with that novel, Anon. thanks for the information. I will check it out, although I'm not sure a meritocracy is much better than an oligarchy in terms of fundamental democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I read the novel well back in the last century–was Edward VII still king?– so my memory of it is, shall we say, slightly vague. I don' remember that Shute really explored the implications of the 7-vote idea, more that it was just a plot twist. Idiot's idea jugged my memory.

    I, too, would question if a Shute–type meritocracy would be better than universal suffrage but it can be a nice idea to toss around. Maybe a SF or Alternate History novel to start?

    Which reminds me, do we know if Tobias Lutke is an Ayn Rand fan like most of the Silicon Valley tech–lords seem to be? The idea is stupid enough that Ayn Rand could have inspired it if not actually proposed it.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An interesting association, Anon. It clearly is an idea worthy of her philosophy.

      Delete