So I was listening to the radio the other day, and some folks were being interviewed about their political preferences. The people were spouting some non-veiled racist bullshit about why Trump was the better candidate. They then interviewed some other people who were reciting some poorly thought out arguments about why Biden should be elected. No one seemed to have a deep understanding of what they were talking about, and they all appeared misguided.
It got me thinking "fuck, these people are going to be voting in the presidential election, and their votes count exactly the same as someone well informed. What a disaster." Why should an uneducated racist get the same type of input as say, a professor of political science? (Obviously, there are reasons why).
Anyway, I was exasperated and complained to a friend about this, and he mentioned a book he had read about the the idea of an epistocracy--a political system in which the opinions of the highly informed count more heavily then the opinions of the less informed. Here is what the author of the book, Jason Brennan, had to say to justify his ideas:
"We know that an unfortunate side effect of democracy is that it incentivizes citizens to be ignorant, irrational, tribalistic, and to not use their votes in very serious ways. So this is an attempt to correct for that pathology while keeping what’s good about a democratic system.
We have to ask ourselves what we think government is actually for. Some people think it has the value a painting has, which is to say that it’s symbolic. In that view, you might think, “We should have democracy because it’s a way of civilizing and expressing the idea that all of us have equal value.”
There’s another way of looking at government, which is that it’s a tool, like a hammer, and the purpose of politics is to generate just and good outcomes, to generate efficiency and stability, and to avoid mistreating people. So if you think government is for that purpose, and I do, then you have to wonder if we should pick the form of government that best delivers the goods, whatever that might be."
Anyway, I can think of a few arguments for and against this approach. But I would love to hear your thoughts.
It got me thinking "fuck, these people are going to be voting in the presidential election, and their votes count exactly the same as someone well informed. What a disaster." Why should an uneducated racist get the same type of input as say, a professor of political science? (Obviously, there are reasons why).
Anyway, I was exasperated and complained to a friend about this, and he mentioned a book he had read about the the idea of an epistocracy--a political system in which the opinions of the highly informed count more heavily then the opinions of the less informed. Here is what the author of the book, Jason Brennan, had to say to justify his ideas:
"We know that an unfortunate side effect of democracy is that it incentivizes citizens to be ignorant, irrational, tribalistic, and to not use their votes in very serious ways. So this is an attempt to correct for that pathology while keeping what’s good about a democratic system.
We have to ask ourselves what we think government is actually for. Some people think it has the value a painting has, which is to say that it’s symbolic. In that view, you might think, “We should have democracy because it’s a way of civilizing and expressing the idea that all of us have equal value.”
There’s another way of looking at government, which is that it’s a tool, like a hammer, and the purpose of politics is to generate just and good outcomes, to generate efficiency and stability, and to avoid mistreating people. So if you think government is for that purpose, and I do, then you have to wonder if we should pick the form of government that best delivers the goods, whatever that might be."
Anyway, I can think of a few arguments for and against this approach. But I would love to hear your thoughts.
Comment