Some years ago, I was considering ways in which a government could be more personally utilitarian. What I concluded is that the idea of a majority vote is very flawed. It does not take satisfaction or priority into account. In other words, if 51% of people would be only slightly satisfied that something is being passed, compared to the 49% who would have a much larger decrease in satisfaction, then, this is very limiting. However, there is a solution that will leave the randomly chosen person (RCP) with a higher chance of being satisfied at any given -moment. I call it "priority voting" -
This method would allow voters to assign numbers (-2,-1,0,1,2) to policies or issues, with respect to predicted satisfaction, each one on a limited basis. This forces the voter to prioritize their wants, resulting in a greater chance for satisfaction for all.
As I mentioned, the RCP plays a large role in the idea of Randomly Chosen Person utilitarianism. This encompasses a moral or ethical view of the world. Because satisfaction is the main driving factor of all actions, it should be readily acceptable that the best world is one in which you as an individual are satisfied. Even if everyone else is dissatisfied, yet you feel satisfied, then you are feeling good about life. This isn't to say that you are a good or bad person, only that you are in a favorable situation. So, as a personal utilitarian, your chance of being satisfied is increased so long as the chance for the RCP to be satisfied at any given moment is higher. This results in all kinds of conclusions. For instance, it provides that you should help other people achieve satisfaction (or what would typically be referred to as a "good" person) - because it would result in a higher RCP satisfaction rate.
This also supports the idea of priority voting.
