I’m not ignoring or dismissing your concern that many with no interest in, politics vote, it just wasn’t apparent to me that you felt they shouldn’t. That may, of course simply be due to my own conviction that, however I may feel about that fact, it is not my right to dictate who should have the right to, or the reasons why they should, and, whilst I’m fairly pessimistic-to-nihilistic about things as they stand (often despairing of the human race as a whole) and how they might evolve (if at all), I’m not convinced that limiting governance to an elite selected by the worthy is the way to go.

For all the potential problems caused by low-information voters, universal suffrage is still the most moral approach; anything else is too easily and too quickly corrupted by those who narrow the caucus to their own benefit and the detriment of the excluded — we already have voter suppression without legitimisng it to boot

What we need to do is engender a sense of civic duty but, again, that is beyond the scope of my proposal here, which is simply that we reduce the negative impact of the mechanics. Who gets to vote isn’t the issue here but how they vote when they do, such that their vote actually has an impact and, furthermore, cannot be as easily subverted as current systems allow vested interests to do, once they have voted.

It is revolutionary in the sense that it would grant the populace more power than they currently have to influence the makeup of government, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the nature of representative government: once elected, MPs act according to whatever conscience they have and that isn’t changed by the mechanics I’m proposing.

So how we sell it is on that basis: it’s not revolutionary, upending government per se, but an evolutionary step in the direction of giving the populace more actual choice rather than the choice of whatever democratic crumbs our betters deign to offer us.