Democracy vs. epistocracy
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 2:50 pm
http://blog.press.princeton.edu/2016/06 ... istocracy/
The argument goes that democracy isn't an intrinsic good but only an instrumental good and if there's a way of bringing about better outcomes without infringing on anyone's rights, shouldn't a society try to do so? This is a particularly salient topic after the last election in the US. (Would Hillary voters be as exercised about it or Trump supporters as sanguine about it if she had won? ) Brennan argues that the incentive structure in present democracies isn't designed to bring about good outcomes. Imagine, he says, that in the first day of class, the teacher says to the class that your final grade will be based on the average grade of her 210 million students. Would you have any incentive to study?
Arguments against it include the idea that since every adult citizen is equal before the law, their franchise should be equal as well. Also each one is an equal stakeholder in the outcome of elections. (That's debatable.) If society sets up some kind of test for voting, that might open the door to another entrenched, self-justifying elite, another 'gatekeeper' that determines what voters should know and how much they should know, although the last objection isn't a hurdle that couldn't be cleared with safeguards. Also, if "those who know" are really better at making political decisions, shouldn't we find a broad consensus of opinion among them? We don't.
The argument goes that democracy isn't an intrinsic good but only an instrumental good and if there's a way of bringing about better outcomes without infringing on anyone's rights, shouldn't a society try to do so? This is a particularly salient topic after the last election in the US. (Would Hillary voters be as exercised about it or Trump supporters as sanguine about it if she had won? ) Brennan argues that the incentive structure in present democracies isn't designed to bring about good outcomes. Imagine, he says, that in the first day of class, the teacher says to the class that your final grade will be based on the average grade of her 210 million students. Would you have any incentive to study?
Arguments against it include the idea that since every adult citizen is equal before the law, their franchise should be equal as well. Also each one is an equal stakeholder in the outcome of elections. (That's debatable.) If society sets up some kind of test for voting, that might open the door to another entrenched, self-justifying elite, another 'gatekeeper' that determines what voters should know and how much they should know, although the last objection isn't a hurdle that couldn't be cleared with safeguards. Also, if "those who know" are really better at making political decisions, shouldn't we find a broad consensus of opinion among them? We don't.