Accountability is a strange thing these days. People “take responsibility” when the public finds out they did something wrong, but very rarely do any consequences ensue. Errant public officials keep their positions, CEOs often maintain their jobs,  and celebrities simply say “That’s not who I am,” when caught in a racist or ill-advised social post that earns widespread condemnation from the online community. True accountability is exceedingly rare.

I suspect that for many of the monied amongst us, the very concept of accountability is an irritant, foisted upon them by their ‘lessers’. Oh, how they must chafe under the rules of democracy, where every citizen has a potential voice (should they choose to vote) in the rules that govern them. It doesn’t seem fair that the wealthy vote, at least in theory, carries only the same weight as everyone else’s. Surely a change is needed so that accountability can be set on their terms.

No liberal democracy has experimented with disenfranchising what in Canada would amount to more than 12 million people, or close to one-third of the total population.

In posts on X, Lütke had these words for Canada’s seniors: “New deal,” he wrote. “When you get your pension deal it’s locked in and guaranteed. But now you are a dependent and that means no voting, just like dependents under age. Enjoy the deal, let people with a stake in the future decide.”

As a senior, I find the idea that we have no stake in the future of our country to be deeply offensive. It essentially stereotypes us as layabouts living off the fat of the land, idlers who have nothing useful to offer or say about the policies and direction of Canada. Institutional memory seems to offend, perhaps even frighten, Lutke.

However, his ideas don’t stop with simple disenfranchisement. He also says that the wealthier one is, the more votes one should have. He

endorsed a voting system floated by former banker Eric Thor that would see ballots weighted “proportional to the level of income tax you pay.” The system would be progressive and proportional, capped at five votes for those who pay $500,000 a year or more, while those who pay no income tax would not receive a vote. Lutke called it “good,” noting it would “reward productive people with leverage.”

What’s disturbing isn’t just the idea itself — a voting system that distributes ballots based on income tax paid — but also that publicly praising it adds to the public register an approach to self-government that reduces people to their perceived economic value. The next leap, which is barely a skip, is that the government should get out of the way and let the rich lead us all towards a libertarian utopia free from state regulation or any commitment to caring for those who are unable or unwilling to be “builders,” to use the parlance of tech types.

Democracy is imperfect and always evolving. Some shun their civic responsibility, evidenced by perennially poor turnouts at the ballot box. In a democracy, that is their choice, just as it is their right to vote for parties and ideas that some of us may not like. However, all of that is a far cry from what oligarchs like Lutke are suggesting. 

Such individuals may not like democratic accountability, but if they must have it, they want it set on their terms. One has merely to look at people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg to see where that would lead.