Infocracy, a change to democracy
I'm 18, just finished 12th, and I've been thinking about a fundamental problem with democracy:
An informed vote and an uninformed vote carry identical weight. That asymmetry weakens democratic outcomes — not because uninformed people are bad, but because the system gives them no incentive to become informed and no support to do so.
I've been developing a framework I'm calling Infocracy to address this. Here's the summary:
CORE IDEA
Every citizen votes. Nobody is excluded. But civic knowledge is rewarded with greater electoral weight.
THE TEST
30 MCQ questions. Easy difficulty only. Randomised from 20,000 question pool.
— 15 questions: general politics and governance
— 5 questions: policies relevant to your occupation
— 5 questions: basic moral and ethical baselines
— 5 questions: other general policies
Score 50%+: 5 votes. Below 50%: 1 vote. Reserved categories threshold: 30%.
NOBODY GETS ZERO
Even if you don't appear for the test, you get 1 vote. This is non-negotiable — complete exclusion would allow losing parties to delegitimise every election result forever.
INDEPENDENCE
The question committee is constitutionally protected, citizen-funded (not government-funded) and composed of hundreds of diverse experts. Modelled on ECI but financially independent of government entirely.
EDUCATION FIRST
Civic education is mandatory in all school boards. Education budget constitutionally fixed at 15%. Every 10,000 people must have one government school — legally enforceable with financial penalties. Coaching industry teachers absorbed into government schools to fix quality.
MEDIA
Independent public media funded by a separate citizen tax. Government has zero financial leverage over editorial decisions.
I've stress tested this against every major objection I could think of — marginalisation, gaming, language bias, government capture, electoral legitimacy. Happy to share the full document if anyone's interested.
What are the strongest arguments against Infocracy? Looking for serious pushback.