Nevil Shute’s Seven-Vote System

Rethinking Democracy and Weighted Voting

Nevil Shute was a British novelist, who in his book In The Wet featured a thought-provoking multiple-vote system, where each person in the general election had up to seven votes based on various ‘qualifications’. It’s an imagining of a more nuanced take on democracy that looks to take into account a broad appreciation for life experience and resulting perspective, as well as what one might consider to be a certain kind of proficiency within the system.

Shute’s imagined idea of democracy was merely flirting with what is possible, although it’s this kind of creativity that can give rise to better systems if we spend a pensive moment taking them seriously. Everything begins with an idea, a moment of philosophising, before something more substantial can develop. And while a quick imagining of policy within a fiction novel has hardly been taken up for proper consideration for global government, it does add some further sauce to the conversation when we are looking at designing a future together.

His idea is quite simple in principle:

Everyone is invited to vote, although those who are considered to be more intelligent or wise, more official, or more mature in their thinking are awarded greater voting power.

Here’s how the votes are won — from Wikipedia:

“Everyone gets a basic vote. Other votes can be earned for education (including a commission in the armed forces), earning one's living overseas for two years, raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing, being an official of a Christian church, or having a high-earned income. The seventh vote, which in the book is awarded to David Anderson for his heroism, is only given at the Queen's discretion by Royal Charter.”

For further context, here’s an excerpt from the novel:

The pilot nodded. ‘I'm a three-vote man.’
[…]
‘What do you get three votes for?’ the captain asked.

‘Basic, education, and foreign travel.’

‘The basic vote — that’s what everybody gets, is it?’

‘That’s right,’ the pilot said. ‘Everybody gets that at the age of twenty-one.’

‘And education?’

‘That’s for higher education,’ David said. ‘You get it if you take a university degree. There’s a whole list of other things you get it for, like being a solicitor or a doctor. Officers get it when they’re commissioned. That’s how I got mine.’

‘And foreign travel?’'

‘That’s for earning your living outside Australia for two years. It’s a bit of a racket, that one, because in the war a lot of people got it for their war service. I got mine that way. I didn’t know anything about the Philippines, really, when I came away, although I’d been there for three years, off and on.’

‘You had a wider outlook than if you’d stayed at home,’ the captain said. ‘I suppose that's worth something.’

‘I suppose it is.’

‘So you’ve got three votes. How does that work out in practice, at an election?’

‘You get three voting papers given to you, and fill in all three, and put them in the box,’ the pilot said.

‘You're on the register as having three votes?’

‘That’s right. You have to register again when you get an extra vote - produce some sort of a certificate.’

They sat in silence for a time, looking out over the crowded harbour in the sunset light. Rosemary came to the saloon ladder and spoke up to them. ‘You can get more votes than three, can't you?’ she said. ‘Is it seven?’

David glanced down her. ‘The seventh is hardly ever given,’ he said. ‘Only the Queen can give that.’

She nodded. ‘I know. We get them coming through the office. I should think there must be about ten a year.’

‘The others are straightforward,’ David said. ‘You get a vote if you raise two children to the age of fourteen without getting a divorce. That’s the family vote.’

‘You can’t get it if you’re divorced?’ asked Rosemary, smiling.

‘No. That puts you out.’

‘Do you both get it?’

‘Husband and wife both get it,’ David said.

‘What’s the fifth one?’

‘The achievement vote,’ said David. ‘You get an extra vote if your personal exertion income — what you call earned income here — if that was over something or other in the year before the election — five thousand a year, I think. I don’t aspire to that one. It’s supposed to cater for the man who’s got no education and has never been out of Australia and quarrelled with his wife, but built up a big business. They reckon that he ought to have more say in the affairs of the country than his junior typist.’

‘Maybe. And the sixth?’

‘That’s if you're an official of a church. Any recognized Christian church — they’ve got a list of them. You don’t have to be a minister. I think churchwardens get it as well as vicars, but I’m really not quite sure. What it boils down to is that you get an extra vote if you’re doing a real job for a church.’

‘That’s an interesting one.’

‘It’s never interested me much.’ said the pilot. ‘I suppose I’m not ambitious. But I think it’s a good idea, all the same.’

‘So that’s six votes,’ Captain Osborne said. ‘The basic vote and education, and foreign travel, and the family vote, and the achievement vote, and the church vote. What’s the seventh?’

‘That’s at the Queen’s pleasure,’ said David. ‘I’'s a bit like a decoration. You get it if you’re such a hell of a chap that the Queen thinks you ought to have another vote.’

‘Aren’t there any rules about getting it?’

‘I don’t think so,’ said the pilot. ‘I think you just get it for being a good boy.’

I’d like to break down each vote for commentary, considering them as useful in deciding how to weight an individual’s input in a democratic system.

First Vote — Basic Vote:

For everyone to have a vote is what makes this a democracy. Everyone’s opinion is acknowledged and valued in some way, regardless of who you are or what you’ve done.

Second Vote — Education / Military Experience:

Broad though it may be, and flawed though our education system is, education is still a marker that correlates with intelligence. Of course there are many different forms of intelligence, and someone who hasn’t had a tertiary education is not necessarily any less intelligent than someone who has. What education does represent is an active and systematic stimulation of the brain, which tends to physically grow the brain regardless of whether the information adopted through education is true and relevant or not.

Military experience here may represent something similar — an ability to follow rules, successfully repeatable behaviour or thinking, and an ability to retain certain skills and information. Neither distinguishes between a high performer and low performer, although meeting the basic performance requirements may communicate some level of proficiency in life.

Third Vote — Overseas Living:

Travel is one form of consciousness expansion. Through variety of experience, understanding of different cultures, different peoples, different ways of doing things, one gains invaluable perspective. Especially considering the fact that most people never travel far from their birthplace, overseas living could very well be counted as a valid marker of wisdom and life experience that would indicate a more intelligent vote.

With travel also comes a learned ability to adapt and to self-govern. It throws you into a state of neuroplasticity, where you have to constantly learn and relearn, adopt new ways of doing things, navigate new places, set new routines, and survive unfamiliar dangers and challenges.

Perspective is the single most valuable contributor to intelligent decision-making — more important even than any qualification. Even with all the degrees and work experience in the world, lack of perspective can mean the application of that knowledge is completely invalid.

Fourth Vote — Raising Children:

Being a parent is a position of huge responsibility, where the process of learning is just as inescapable as uptake of accountability of someone else’s life. Raising children to the age of fourteen without divorce in itself is no doubt a challenge. While this doesn’t necessarily mean you are proficient at either parenthood or marriage, it does mean you have been provided the opportunity to learn as a leader, provider, carer, teacher, time-manager, rule-giver, entertainer, chauffeur, and whatever other possibilities the role of a parent may comprise.

Having children under your care (even and especially before the age of fourteen) may mean that you are filling a valuable role, raising the next generation. It could even be argued that a parent is more invested in society given they have the wellbeing of their child/children on the line, and an extra vote could be considered a vote for the good of one’s children. This doesn’t seem to be something Shute had in mind with his system, although it could be a consideration when redesigning democracy for ourselves. Should someone who has more ties to and investments in society have more say in how it’s run? Or should parents hold the votes of each child (counted as a member of society) and cast it on their behalf before their coming of age?

If future parenthood was more aligned with specific child-rearing education, we could better guarantee a link between parenthood and wisdom. I would argue, however, that the ability to have sex and wear a ring is not inherently related to one’s ability to make a sound decision. There could be further discussion to explore here, though, that might support the notion that a parent (especially a ‘successful’ one) should have more say in society.

Fifth Vote — High Income:

This is an idea the Ten-Tier System was originally playing with. Should the overall competence and success of the individual be considered worthwhile of extra voting privilege? Under the Ten-Tier System where remuneration more accurately and fairly reflects one’s societal contribution, a high earner is someone who in theory has contributed most to society and is possibly more invested in it in various ways. They have likely also proven themselves as competent in their decisions and abilities, which is almost sure to correlate with intelligent decision-making for society as a whole.

However, it doesn’t necessarily mean that someone who has contributed meaningfully is wise or knowledgeable across the board. Ultimately, the design of the Ten-Tier System for now does not give extra voting privilege to high earners for two main reasons. First, high earners have already been rewarded for their contributions. Secondly, this contributes to the creation and perpetuation of a class-based system, where the rich are inherently more privileged in almost all matters. This means that the rich get enhanced power to vote in a way that serves them best, which is not completely unlike the flawed elitist capitalist model we have currently.

Sixth Vote — Church Leadership:

Should being a Church official give a person extra voting power? Personally, I don’t see how involvement with the Church makes one’s vote any more qualified, unless you are specifically building a society based on Christian (or another religion’s) values. Even then, for most voting subjects where moral values are irrelevant, it would be favouring someone for their identity and not their decision-making ability. The key word here, however, might be ‘Church official’, which, as I’ve titled this section, may be unpacked as a form of leadership. Christian officials tend to be people who are turned to for wisdom and guidance, trusted with confessions. Under a different model we could frame this as empowering someone’s vote for their role as a recognised and respected leader, which could indeed make sense.

In the Ten-Tier System, a role of leadership was considered to add to their contribution score, which seems a similar concept to the ‘personal exertion income’ mentioned in Shute’s excerpt above. One’s efforts and contributions to society can take many forms, and while contribution is not always proportional to effort/exertion, leadership roles tend to require additional time, energy, and responsibility from a person, which could be considered a sacrifice if not compensated. The TTS as it stands has been inclined to incorporate that role into the quantification of one’s financial remuneration (salary), although there is also sense in keeping such things separate and unpaid. An extra vote (or weight of a vote) could be one form of reward or recognition for one’s extra effort or sacrifice if increased pay seems inappropriate.

Seventh Vote — Queen’s Honour:

This one I can’t help but like. It keeps society open to acknowledging special contribution and profound feats of the individual that can be rewarded in a rare or unique way. It accounts for wild cards, special occasions, and to me brings some extra heart to what may otherwise be quite a cold and calculated approach to democracy.

But who decides who should be honoured? Without a king or queen, suppose it would once again be the people who get to vote a nominee into a privileged position. No harm, no foul, I say.

An overall commentary:

Shute’s seven-vote system is certainly an interesting concept to play with, and one we could take seriously when considering how to structure our approach to democratic decision-making. I wonder if we could even incorporate this into the Ten-Tier System…

The TTS design at present offers everyone a single vote, with the weighting of that vote likely being percentage- or score-based, relative to one’s contextual qualifications, experience, and personal investment. However, the metrics and systems used to decide what qualifications and experience are relevant and how relevant, as well as what dictates ‘personal investment’, could be up for discussion. This would require some complexity and a highly tuned algorithms that most people would not comprehend. Shute’s seven-vote system is much simpler and easier to understand for the layman. It’s devised to empower the individual — trusting their judgement across the board — rather than considering the relevance of their experience and knowledge for a specific vote. It uses quite generalised metrics: perspective, life experience, and a fundamental sense of civic responsibility. The system recognises that each person's unique life journey can bring valuable insights to the decision-making process.

Another interesting point to consider here is how votes can be practically used. The proferred TTS voting system gives a person one single vote. This can channel us into a kind of decisiveness, which could be useful when making a timely decision, although it may also force us into an uncompromising mindset. With a multiple-vote system, you do not necessarily need to spend all your votes in the same way, and you could, in a manner of speaking, tick multiple boxes. This can mean certain options are less isolated if not a first pick, and the data gathered from spreading our votes could be of interest and use (e.g. obtaining measures and degrees of decisiveness specific to certain subjects) — even spreading votes between a yes/no, A-or-B vote.

Another pro of the TTS voting system is that it would likely work better with digitalisation. It has a more refined and nuanced weighting system, where the difference between a one-vote and two-vote person in Shute’s system creates a huge displacement and a dramatic shift of power in favour of those who align themselves with society’s favoured ideas of success or life advancement. For example, a low-earning childless citizen with a tertiary education would get double the voting power of the same demographic who does not. Is this fair? I’ll leave that for you to decide.

If we were to allow public input and ultimate people’s authority in matters of industry, law, or other complex subjects that are not part of a general election, the differences in vote weight here may not appropriately serve an intelligent outcome.

---

The Ten-Tier System isn’t a set model where the only options are to adopt it in its entirety or dismiss it. The design thus far is to allow for change and encourage it, taking into consideration any perspective or critique to help construct and improve it. Shute’s system and the philosophy that helped imagine it into existing is, if nothing more, interesting to contemplate. I wonder, even, if we might be able to incorporate some of these ideas into a system without making it overly complex for the layman of society.

Food for thought…