Those of us who play poker understand a basic concept of the game, the more chips you place in the middle the more you risk.

Well, on Memorial Day we remember those who put all their chips in the game. In the end they didn’t lose, as their risk vouchsafed the hand of the rest of America and the Free World. But one thing is missing. If their bet bore fruit then where are their proper winnings?

Close

Granted, the families of the fallen are taken care of somewhat by the VA. As the son of a man who died as a result of his service in the WWII US Navy, I know this to be true.

However, their sacrifice should have more than a material aspect. Which brings us back to those winnings and On Liberty, a book written in 1842 by J.S. Mill.

In it and in other works “Mill followed the political trend of his time, of extending the suffrage to greater and greater numbers of political subjects. Nonetheless, Mill was also wary about the democratic extension, and he wanted to realize it in a well-balanced way. In relation to this, he argued that the process of electing members to Parliament should not be carried out via a one-man-one-vote procedure, but by according multiple votes to certain members of the electorate who meet a set of prescribed qualifications. We must read the plural voting proposal in this light. Firstly, in offering the justification for following a system of plural voting alongside the extension of universal suffrage…The quotation exposes one of Mill’s rationales for plural voting. Though every voice needs to be heard in government, claims Mill, not every voice carries equal weight, and not every assessment of social problems and proposals for their potential solutions treads equally in seeking out fitting administrative action.” That was from a December 2015 paper by Professors Elvio Baccarini and Viktor Ivankovic. I agree. Quality of the franchise is more important than quantity of the franchise.

As such, I propose this Memorial Day that Mills’ “prescribed qualifications” should be extended to immediate families of fallen veterans and also to disabled veterans of any sort. I would also extend plural voting to active duty military, law enforcement, and firefighters. They put more chips in the game. They deserve more of a return than cash.

Let me admit something and also be explicit. I would qualify under more than one of the categories above. Thus if this is by definition self-serving, so be it. My father and then I earned the qualification. Also, what I am specifically proposing is that individuals who fall under the terms above be given two votes at the appropriate political level. For law enforcement and firefighters, two votes in local elections. For the spouses and children of fallen veterans, disabled veterans, and active duty military, two at the federal level.

Would this establish a political elite of the qualified individuals? Yes. Would it spur those who wanted to be a part of that elite to serve in those posts? Yes. Is this suspiciously like the form of government as envisioned in the science fiction parody Starship Troopers? Okay, well, yes. Though would it raise the bar of the electorate away from addled sheep and towards mature adults? Also, yes. And that is a reform sorely needed.

But be it current science fiction or not, the principle holds. If you invest chips in a poker game then you have more of an interest in that game than a bystander or a player who sits back safe and watches the action. The families of fallen veterans, disabled veterans, active duty military, law enforcement, and firefighters have invested more in America than the average citizen. Their sacrifices and commitments need to be recognized by our political system.