News Would a Meritocratic Republic Outperform Contemporary Democracies?

[Czcibor]

Because of some ambiguity of word meritocracy, by meritocracy I mean here a republic but where only better educated part of population (ex.: 20%) has voting rights.

As the way of measuring that merit should be applied standardized tests, including math, logical thinking, understanding written texts and basic knowledge.

Logic behind the idea:
-better educated portion of population should in general make better decisions;
-better educated people should be in general harder to mislead in add campaign, thus financing add campaigns would be less tempting;
-better educated people in general tend to prefer more moderate positions;
-world is simply more complicated than in the past (ex. more information that can be known, moving from simple night watch gov towards all encompassing state, deep economic ties with whole world);
-we don't mind to test someone skills before giving him driving licence, while creating reasonable policy is harder than driving;
-contemporary democracy is anyway evolving in system where importance of view of voter is diminishing (USA - its congress can barely claim double digit support; EU - where people are as long asked in referendums whether they agree for deeper integration until they agree out of apathy; power is granted to supranational organizations in multilateral treaties like WTO - its not a bad idea, however, you know decisions there are not specially democratic; not only judiciary became an independent branch with mild direct influence of the voters but the same route was followed with central banks; southern EU - politicians may promise their citizens whatever they like, but anyway have no choice to adopt austerity that their voters detest)

Concerning potential counter arguments:
-I'm not an American, so quoting US constitution wouldn't be treated as infallible argument.
-If argument revolves around the fact that the idea is against democracy, then I would like to point out that introduction of democracy was clearly against divine right of kings. (ideas change with time, maybe there is a need for a next change)

 

[snorkack]

The question is then - how do formal oligarchies function?

Most formal oligarchies have been based on, basically, wealth censuses. Education census has been used as supplement, but rarely for majority of voters.

If you have education census then your problems will be:

do the tests decide anything else useful in daily life besides voting rights? (If 20% of population get a vote, then individual vote is not very useful for most of them.)

If no, then you have the problems justifying the costs of administering the tests.

If yes, the people have the incentive to cheat.

Generally, any test which is important enough to be worth administering is important enough to be worth rying to cheat. You need tests which are easy and practical to administer in face of people trying to cheat.

Not only will the people sitting the tests be trying to cheat, and people administering the test will be trying to earn bribes by letting people cheat, but people designing the tests will be also controversial, in what exactly the tests measure.

Another example of current formal oligarchies are the various single parties. Chinese Communist Party is about 10 % of eligible adults... but the rank and file members do not actually get to bote much.

 

[D H]

Would only the 20% who vote pay taxes? Probably not.
Would the 20% who vote have to obey the same laws as the 80% who can't vote? Probably not.

More likely is that the voting elite would vote left and right to protect and take advantage of their elite status.

What distinguishes that 80% who have no rights (and they eventually will have no rights) from slaves?

 

[Czcibor]

If you have education census then your problems will be:

do the tests decide anything else useful in daily life besides voting rights? (If 20% of population get a vote, then individual vote is not very useful for most of them.)

If no, then you have the problems justifying the costs of administering the tests.

If yes, the people have the incentive to cheat.

Tests can be used as part of exams after the end of secondary school, while anyone who is willing can take them on different occasion.

Another example of current formal oligarchies are the various single parties. Chinese Communist Party is about 10 % of eligible adults... but the rank and file members do not actually get to bote much.

I don't find it particularly good analogy. The selection process requires not merit but conformity.

Would only the 20% who vote pay taxes? Probably not.

You know, nowadays you can vote without paying taxes (as welfare recipient who gets more money than pays in indirect taxes) or as foreigner / foreign investor pay taxes without right to vote. I'm not sure how it's relevant here, unless you prefer neither democracy nor suggested meritocracy, and rather a system where the paid taxes matter.

Would the 20% who vote have to obey the same laws as the 80% who can't vote? Probably not.

More likely is that the voting elite would vote left and right to protect and take advantage of their elite status.

What distinguishes that 80% who have no rights (and they eventually will have no rights) from slaves?

Let's imagine that you actually pass that test, while quite a few of your relatives or friends don't. Would you vote to turn them into second class citizens or slaves? (Would you expect others to want to turn big part of their friends and relatives into slaves?) If not, wouldn't that contradict that what you have just said?

 

[AlephZero]

More likely is that the voting elite would vote left and right to protect and take advantage of their elite status.

The obvious first step would be close down the education system, except for teaching their own kids how to pass the tests.

If you think that's far-fetched, consider that for about 1000 years the main reason people in Europe were taught arithmetic was so they could understand how to calculate the date of Easter - and not many people need to know even that much.

 

[nsaspook]

Let's imagine that you actually pass that test, while quite a few of your relatives or friends don't. Would you vote to turn them into second class citizens or slaves? (Would you expect others to want to turn big part of their friends and relatives into slaves?) If not, wouldn't that contradict that what you have just said?

If past human history means anything then yes I would expect the "non-elites" to eventually become 'slaves' that would eventually rise up and destroy the elites. A meritocratic system would quickly concentrate power to a very few "peter principle" rulers that would degenerate into the normal states of chaos, maintaining power by payoffs and harsh punishments. Never underestimate the ability of people to be cruel to others when there is no fear of reprisal.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062092065/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[lisab]

The obvious first step would be close down the education system, except for teaching their own kids how to pass the tests.

If you think that's far-fetched, consider that for about 1000 years the main reason people in Europe were taught arithmetic was so they could understand how to calculate the date of Easter - and not many people need to know even that much.

That was my exact thought, too! Power corrupts.

 

[Tosh5457]

I think that would very quickly lead to social instability. Theoretically if a dictatorship is led by a competent person, it could generate much better results than a democracy, but you're taking away people's rights and social instability will follow.

 

[ImaLooser]

Because of some ambiguity of word meritocracy, by meritocracy I mean here a republic but where only better educated part of population (ex.: 20%) has voting rights.

I'd say that it has been tried. In the old days only property owners could vote. I bet you would find a strong correlation between wealth and education. Third world countries like Chile still pretty much operate this way, or at least they did last time I checked.

The result was/is that political decisions were made to benefit property owners, and the propertyless didn't like it. In the US they got the vote rather quickly, though I don't know how.

 

[ImaLooser]

If past human history means anything then yes I would expect the "non-elites" to eventually become 'slaves' that would eventually rise up and destroy the elites.

Studying history this doesn't happen unless the system breaks down enough that people start to get hungry. People care a lot more about food than about freedom.

Especially if they are starving. Then you might as well rebel, because you're going to die anyway.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Czcibor, do you think you would be in the 20% or the 80%? Would your viewpoint change if you knew you would be in the 80%?

 

[nsaspook]

Studying history this doesn't happen unless the system breaks down enough that people start to get hungry. People care a lot more about food than about freedom.

Especially if they are starving. Then you might as well rebel, because you're going to die anyway.

It's been my experience that people revolt long before they starve unless it's in a total gulag like in Cambodia where the leaders control by brute murder to simply erase unwanted groups.
Libyan is a classic example of a revolt: http://www.spiegel.de/international...-against-escalation-of-violence-a-746847.html

Helpless not hunger causes revolts. Helpless in a meritocratic system would happen very quirky for the "stupid" as they effectively would have little real control over their lives but would still have to support the system with the labor of their lives.

 

[jim hardy]

I wouldn't trust it .

my favorite writer had this to say:

The nineteenth century was naïve because it did not know the end of the story. It did not know what happens when dedicated idealists come to power; it did not know the intimate linkage between idealists and policemen, between being your brother’s keeper and being his jailkeeper.

It is disconcerting that present-day young who did not know Stalin and Hitler are displaying the old naïveté. After all that has happened they still do not know that you cannot build utopia without terror, and that before long terror is all that’s left.

Before the Sabbath (1974), p. 120

http://erichoffer.blogspot.com/2012/07/nineteenth-century-was-naive-because-it.html

 

[snorkack]

I'd say that it has been tried. In the old days only property owners could vote. I bet you would find a strong correlation between wealth and education. Third world countries like Chile still pretty much operate this way,

No, they do not.

I believe United Arab Emirates is the only formal oligarchy I know, and they are mostly absolute monarchy. The rest either claim universal suffrage (and use various means to prevent actual free vote) or (a minority) do not hold elections.

For example of limited suffrage, look at UK between 1832 and 1928.

Before 1832, approrimately 1 man from 7 could vote at all, and most of them were represented only by the constituencies of shires and boroughs with wide franchise. A small fraction of that 1/7 controlled a large number of Commons seats of rotten boroughs.

From 1832 to 1867, about 1/5 of men could vote, and their votes were more equally distributed.

From 1867 to 1884, about 1/3 of men could vote.

From 1884 to 1918, about 2/3 of men could vote.

From 1918 to 1928, almost all men over 21 could vote, and about 2/3 over women. Women had to be over 30 to vote and hold property or be wives of property owners - but women with university education could also vote even if they did not qualify under property census.

From 1928, all men and women over 21 could vote.

The minority who could vote did not vote to make the rest "slaves". In fact, they voted 5 times to give votes to others. But even over the centuries before 1832, the people without votes were not deprived of all rights or reduced to slaves.

 

[OmCheeto]

The obvious first step would be close down the education system, except for teaching their own kids how to pass the tests.

If you think that's far-fetched, consider that for about 1000 years the main reason people in Europe were taught arithmetic was so they could understand how to calculate the date of Easter - and not many people need to know even that much.

Far fetched? Nope.

Wisconsin is on the leading edge of a national assault on public education. Walker made a big name for himself with his explosive move to bust public employee unions and take away teachers’ bargaining rights. Now comes the next phase.

“We’ve been hearing about this for years now,” says Democratic state representative Sondy Pope-Roberts. “I see Wisconsin as the first domino in a line. As this falls, I see other states hoping to achieve our quote-unquote success . . . by crushing unions and taking public schools private.”

Just google "war on education". There's lots of material.

The War Against Teachers
If the U.S. is to cease its slide into a violent, anti-democratic state, we must rethink the relationship between education and democracy, and the very nature of teaching.

And one doesn't have to go outside of PF to find out that educated people can be, um, ...

I'm sorrry, but I have no adjective to describe that guy that won't get me an infraction.

---------------------------
I suppose I was lucky not to get one when I compared him to the Nazi Propaganda minister.

 

[Czcibor]

Czcibor, do you think you would be in the 20% or the 80%? Would your viewpoint change if you knew you would be in the 80%?

I think that I would be within 20%. No, I wouldn't change my mind, the point is to have reasonable gov and not a flattering ego illusion that my vote matters. (In the same way as I'm not outraged that by moving power from my country to the EU) I would also support such system if it would be scaled so that the threshold would be above my skills.

If past human history means anything then yes I would expect the "non-elites" to eventually become 'slaves' that would eventually rise up and destroy the elites.

I'm impressed by you so vast knowledge that you apply so general term "past human history". Especially when I think about moving from feudal monarchy towards absolute one, to move further towards actually system where monarch power was somewhat limited by parliament. Judging from that that Austro-Hungarian Empire did not belong to the past human history in which you believe in.

A meritocratic system would quickly concentrate power to a very few "peter principle" rulers that would degenerate into the normal states of chaos, maintaining power by payoffs and harsh punishments. Never underestimate the ability of people to be cruel to others when there is no fear of reprisal.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062092065/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Is 20% a very few? Just for comparison in my country in voting to Europarliament the turnover wasn't much higher (24,53% in 2009)

That was my exact thought, too! Power corrupts.

What about corruption caused by the power to vote in democratic election?

Helpless not hunger causes revolts. Helpless in a meritocratic system would happen very quirky for the "stupid" as they effectively would have little real control over their lives but would still have to support the system with the labor of their lives.

How do you define "control over their lives"? For example until quite recently my country had compulsory enrolment to army. Did I have control over my life in that respect? Did the fact that I could vote for politician saying "no", and be compelled go anyway matter much for the control of my own life?
Same with ex. libertarians - they can whine as much as they want, but anyway they are compelled to do long list of things they detest. Do they rebel?

 

[Zarqon]

I don't think a percental part of the population is a good idea, for reasons that have been mentioned above, and because it makes it very hard to change a downwards spiral in power distribution.

However, I still think a meritocratic system might be worth considering, if it's done using a more absolute goal, for example everyone with a high school or collage degree can vote, regardless of how many percent of the population that becomes. This ensures more fluidity in the power distribution, and anyone to whom voting is important enough, can just focus on getting educated enough to participate.

 

[OmCheeto]

hmmm... In retrospect, maybe it's not a bad idea.

I think only PF members should be allowed to vote.

 

[BobG]

Or perhaps a different meritocracy?

In the book, "Starship Troopers", Heinlein proposed a system where only former military members could vote. (Not current members, since they would have too signficant stake in whether or not the population went to war.)

The important part of being a former military member was that the vote was entrusted to a group of people that had proven their tendency to put the group's needs over their individual needs.

While the "former military member" part may be a little overly restrictive, one could see some positive aspects of demonstrating some sort of serious sacrifice and commitment to the group (nation/city/etc) before allowing a person to decide the fate of that group.

As opposed to an educational requirement, which only ensures that voters understand the effect government policies will have on their own lives.

 

[lisab]

What about corruption caused by the power to vote in democratic election?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Can you explain?

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Can you explain?

I was thinking the same thing yesterday.

Thank you for responding more appropriately than I would have.

My thoughts were more on the line; "Non sequitur, nie wiesz nic o tych sprawach!"*

*What I'm trying to say; "It does not follow, you know nothing of these matters!"

 

[Czcibor]

hmmm... In retrospect, maybe it's not a bad idea.

I think only PF members should be allowed to vote.

Well, we would want to turn into slaves people who are on different forums, right?

I don't think a percental part of the population is a good idea, for reasons that have been mentioned above, and because it makes it very hard to change a downwards spiral in power distribution.

However, I still think a meritocratic system might be worth considering, if it's done using a more absolute goal, for example everyone with a high school or collage degree can vote, regardless of how many percent of the population that becomes. This ensures more fluidity in the power distribution, and anyone to whom voting is important enough, can just focus on getting educated enough to participate.

Assuming that formal education was required, then there would be risk:
-that it would be claimed that's a matter of having money (like in US where it is paid directly by student)
-there would be problem with different curricula (there are schools easy to pass, and very hard to pass)
-there would be an intergeneration problem (ex. in my country) that in past only few percentage had higher education, but now we're flooded by people (round 50% of my generation) who at least theoretically hold at least B.A. diploma. It's not that my country smarten up so much, but also reflect some inflation of titles.

Or perhaps a different meritocracy?

In the book, "Starship Troopers", Heinlein proposed a system where only former military members could vote. (Not current members, since they would have too signficant stake in whether or not the population went to war.)

The important part of being a former military member was that the vote was entrusted to a group of people that had proven their tendency to put the group's needs over their individual needs.

While the "former military member" part may be a little overly restrictive, one could see some positive aspects of demonstrating some sort of serious sacrifice and commitment to the group (nation/city/etc) before allowing a person to decide the fate of that group.

As opposed to an educational requirement, which only ensures that voters understand the effect government policies will have on their own lives.

Let's imagine that you have a group of people that are both bright and selfish. They have to reach a compromise that would leave them the best off. Their self interest involves the country be in good shape in long run, right? Doesn't sound bad.

I would not expect from such people generous donations to charity, but actually voting for politicians with reasonable policies would be one thing that such people would provide

(other thing that they should presumably not be trusted with secret data, there would be a risk that they defect in such case)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Can you explain?

Well, in the precious post it was implied, as general rule that power corrupts. I wanted to ask the person who made such statement to ask whether this rule actually applies to democracy? To those who wield voting card every four years?

 

[OmCheeto]

Well, we would want to turn into slav¹es people who are on different forums, right?

My Polish is much worse than my Russian.

To paraphrase lisab; "Ja nyet pawn-ee-my-et²" <-- Rooski


1. Is it a coincidence that "Slav", meaning "the glorious ones", is apparently the root for "Slave"?
2. I do not understand

I am of course, not averse to being educated, if anything I've posted is incorrect.

 

[russ_watters]

Without reading much of the thread, here's my opinion:

While it sounds nice and logical to have the smart people making the decisions, a successful democracy needs to be aware of and even utilize human nature in governance. Meritocracy fails to be workable due to at least two problems:

1. Smart people still have the common human failing of selfishness, which is probably a bigger problem than intelligence in making quality decisions.

2. Democracies are stable partly becuase everyone has a voice (even if they don't exercise it, it matters that they can). If people are not represented, they will resent the decisions of the government more, even if they tend to be better decisions.

 

[lisab]

Well, we would want to turn into slaves people who are on different forums, right?

Honestly, no, we would not want that. There's a saying in the US: "Be careful what you wish for - it might come true!"

Let's imagine that you have a group of people that are both bright and selfish. They have to reach a compromise that would leave them the best off. Their self interest involves the country be in good shape in long run, right? Doesn't sound bad.

No, their self interest is mainly keeping themselves in power. This rarely involves sharing power - which would mean "educating other people so they can vote" in your system. I think your system would result in denying the masses education.

Education should mean you have a *chance* to become successful, it should never be a guarantee of it.

Well, in the precious post it was implied, as general rule that power corrupts. I wanted to ask the person who made such statement to ask whether this rule actually applies to democracy? To those who wield voting card every four years?

Yes, I was the person who made that post . You're making an assumption that voting leads to corruption. I'm asking you to expand on that idea (i.e., do you have examples or proof that democracy leads to widespread corruption?)

 

[ginru]

I'd opt for letting the best Teachers vote instead. They'd be rated on a balance of Quality of teaching and Quantity of students, thereby ensuring that not only knowledge but also the selfless sharing of that knowledge is factored into the decision making.

 

[BobG]

While it sounds nice and logical to have the smart people making the decisions, a successful democracy needs to be aware of and even utilize human nature in governance.

So you're saying INTJ's shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Humans do have both a rational part and an irrational part and both are very real and need to be addressed.

Actually, running a government solely on logic would have some other serious downsides. For example, at any given time, several of the Congressmen in the room could have blue dots on their head, which would be pretty disturbing, but interestingly, they would all leave the room at the same time. Or, a terrorist could pose as a missionary and reveal some deep personal secret about the Congressmen's sex lives that would result in all of them killing themselves on the 535th night.

 

[Zarqon]

Assuming that formal education was required, then there would be risk:
-that it would be claimed that's a matter of having money (like in US where it is paid directly by student)
-there would be problem with different curricula (there are schools easy to pass, and very hard to pass)
-there would be an intergeneration problem (ex. in my country) that in past only few percentage had higher education, but now we're flooded by people (round 50% of my generation) who at least theoretically hold at least B.A. diploma. It's not that my country smarten up so much, but also reflect some inflation of titles.

2. Democracies are stable partly becuase everyone has a voice (even if they don't exercise it, it matters that they can). If people are not represented, they will resent the decisions of the government more, even if they tend to be better decisions.

Well, when I suggested a fixed education level it was only to make the point that a fixed level is better than a percentage of the population, exactly because of what russ_water says: It's important that everyone has the chance to vote if they find it important enough to get educated for. In addition, note that I do not regard the US system as good in this respect, as education there is still too much of a class thing, it would have to be directly practically and easily available to everyone to count.

Also, one does not have to pick a certain overall education level. Another idea is simply to set up a specific course, something like "All you need to know about politics and ecomony". It would be subject to national standards to guarantee quality and equality (and be free obviously), and which after passing would give you the right to vote.

 

[Czcibor]

My Polish is much worse than my Russian.

To paraphrase lisab; "Ja nyet pawn-ee-my-et²" <-- Rooski


1. Is it a coincidence that "Slav", meaning "the glorious ones", is apparently the root for "Slave"?
2. I do not understand

I am of course, not averse to being educated, if anything I've posted is incorrect.

Yes, I've heard also about this root of this word.

Чего ты не понимаешь?
(I hope that I spelled that correctly, I lack Russian spellcheck; EDIT: I corrected spelling)

1. Smart people still have the common human failing of selfishness, which is probably a bigger problem than intelligence in making quality decisions.

May I show a few cases:

USA: Poor people supporting Tea Party and expecting regularly playing with default and asking for draconian entitlement reduction;
Germany: Public opinion that demanded closing down nuclear plants; (the most expensive to increase carbon dioxide production...)
Poland: Big part of more nationalistic electorate don't believe that our president crashed in mist, but consider that as assassination by Putin and expects from our gov official confirmation of their believes and starting adequate retaliation on Russians

In all above mentioned cases there are clearly good guys who do not fight for themselves but for common good... See the problem?

Yes, I was the person who made that post . You're making an assumption that voting leads to corruption. I'm asking you to expand on that idea (i.e., do you have examples or proof that democracy leads to widespread corruption?)

That's mosltly conclusion of your post.

Premisses:
1) The people who wield power in democracy are those who vote
2) Power corrupts (you stated so, so I would treat is as true)

So assuming that power corrupts, the voters should become corrupted.

Or maybe premise 1 is false? (but then the advantage of democracy is more a convenient illusion, that provides social peace)

Well, when I suggested a fixed education level it was only to make the point that a fixed level is better than a percentage of the population, exactly because of what russ_water says: It's important that everyone has the chance to vote if they find it important enough to get educated for. In addition, note that I do not regard the US system as good in this respect, as education there is still too much of a class thing, it would have to be directly practically and easily available to everyone to count.

Also, one does not have to pick a certain overall education level. Another idea is simply to set up a specific course, something like "All you need to know about politics and ecomony". It would be subject to national standards to guarantee quality and equality (and be free obviously), and which after passing would give you the right to vote.

That as general idea that also could work, though I'm afraid that in such case there would be risk:
-that knowledge would become obsolete (if it is impossible to change question every 5 years)
-that the test would be subject to some kind of gerrymandering (if it's possible to change that)

Some arbitrary, fixed in constitution number would be harder to tamper, but maybe there is a solution that I don't see.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ever read animal farm? The arguments of the pigs would be relevant here.

Aside from the fact that democracies are arguably more moral and grant greater social stability how would a meritocratic system even work? What possible test could be created that would, without significant failure, highlight who is and isn't a benevelont philosopher king? Bear in mind that there is no guarantee that people who are intelligent aren't stupid. How many academics have you heard of that are distnquished in their field yet are also superstitious or buy into crackpot/conspiracy theories or are just downright racist/sexist/ageist etc.

To cap off I'm of the opinion that meritocratic government arguments confuse capability in a field with ability to correctly choose which fields to pursue and when. A meritocratic voter might be an expert in urban development and have a solid plan on what measures to enact to build up and modernise a town but that doesn't mean they have the right to do it. Perhaps the people of that town want to live in a small, traditional settlement (that's one example and I'm sure I can think of better but at the moment I'm running a fever so it will have to do).

Edit: forgot to mention something regarding the title of this thread: republics are not synonymous with democracies. You can have a democracy without it being a republic (the UK) and you can have a republic without it being a democracy (the brief Commonwealth of England).

 

[Vanadium 50]

First, I am pretty sure Heinlein's world required participation in "federal service" which could but did not have to be military.

Second, going from universal suffrage to a 20% franchise means that the 20% thinks the 80% is "voting wrong", and furthermore, they cannot be convinced, so they must have their right to vote revoked. Seems like a tough sell to me.

 

[Czcibor]

Ever read animal farm? The arguments of the pigs would be relevant here.

Yes, I've read it, however, the copy that I read was in unofficial translation that was illegally printed during last days of communism in my country. So maybe there was a part that I missed. (?)

Aside from the fact that democracies are arguably more moral and grant greater social stability how would a meritocratic system even work?

I would be very careful with moral argument.

First we would have to discuss a bit tricky subject of morality and try to take some more culturally neutral viewpoint that would try to take into account ex. divine rights of kings or mandate of heaven. And we would be dangerously far from positivism.

Secondly, I would start from challenging the the morality of democracy by analysing how true were promises given in elections and whether selling products while being so economical with truth wouldn't be considered not only immoral but as fraud under quite a few legal systems.

What possible test could be created that would, without significant failure, highlight who is and isn't a benevelont philosopher king?

But I don't look for a philosopher king. I look for republic where voting rights are granted only to a more intelligent part of population.

Bear in mind that there is no guarantee that people who are intelligent aren't stupid. How many academics have you heard of that are distnquished in their field yet are also superstitious or buy into crackpot/conspiracy theories or are just downright racist/sexist/ageist etc.

Actually, assuming that your point is fighting with crackpot/conspiracy theories or racism/sexism/ageism, then actually moving to such meritocratic system would be according to your goal. Using just education as proxy I've seen stats for my country that the better the education the lower amount of support for conspiracy theories (ex. Russians blowing up plane of our president) and higher tolerance for different races. (ex. accepting relative marrying person of different race)

For sure, there would be some freakish ideas left. But there would be lower percentage of freaks that in general population.

Second, going from universal suffrage to a 20% franchise means that the 20% thinks the 80% is "voting wrong", and furthermore, they cannot be convinced, so they must have their right to vote revoked. Seems like a tough sell to me.

Yes, I agree it's tough to sell. However, in times of monarchies, democracy also wasn't easy to sell.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, I've read it, however, the copy that I read was in unofficial translation that was illegally printed during last days of communism in my country. So maybe there was a part that I missed. (?)

Initially all animals are allowed to propose actions and vote on actions at council meetings. However the pigs are more intelligent and tend to be the ones that propose actions. Eventually the pigs argue it would be more efficient if only pigs were allowed to propose actions but all animals can vote. The they change it to just pigs voting. Then they remove the right to view council discussions. Essentially they slide from productive members of a democracy to a ruling oligarch that takes care of itself. A valuable warning over how non democratic systems have fewer checks and balances.

I would be very careful with moral argument.

First we would have to discuss a bit tricky subject of morality and try to take some more culturally neutral viewpoint that would try to take into account ex. divine rights of kings or mandate of heaven. And we would be dangerously far from positivism.

You're making it more difficult than this needs to be. By my moral standards democracies are more moral.

Secondly, I would start from challenging the the morality of democracy by analysing how true were promises given in elections and whether selling products while being so economical with truth wouldn't be considered not only immoral but as fraud under quite a few legal systems.

You're conflating the issues of individual democratic systems with democracy as a category of government.

But I don't look for a philosopher king. I look for republic where voting rights are granted only to a more intelligent part of population.

I was using hyperbole to make the point that there is no good test to choose who deserves to vote.

Actually, assuming that your point is fighting with crackpot/conspiracy theories or racism/sexism/ageism, then actually moving to such meritocratic system would be according to your goal. Using just education as proxy I've seen stats for my country that the better the education the lower amount of support for conspiracy theories (ex. Russians blowing up plane of our president) and higher tolerance for different races. (ex. accepting relative marrying person of different race)

For sure, there would be some freakish ideas left. But there would be lower percentage of freaks that in general population.

To me this is an argument for increasing education across the board. Not just allowing the educated to vote because there's no check against the meritocrats becoming oligarchs and gaming the system for their continued advantage, there's no good way of evaluating who should get the vote, people have different moral systems and there's no reason to choose one over the other just because of education (e.g imagine a country where private religious schools have more resources per student and so have a disproportionate amount of power in politics that could be used to impose said religion's moral teachings over the rest of society) and lastly I don't see a way in which any society today can transition to a meritocratic one given that education is not fairly distributed now. Change now and you're likely to get a system wherein wealthy white demographics are more likely to be represented without any check.

 

[OmCheeto]

I think that I would be within 20%...

Me too! That's why I find it peculiar that I do not understand you at all.

Also, I pretty much despise politics, as I consider following it a waste of time. Though I know people who I consider to be in the 20%, and I sense some of them have the same values that I do. I would very much like to yield my vote to those people, as someone who follows the issues would do a much better voting job than I.

But this strikes me as how our system works anyways. I vote for who I think is the best representative of my values, and they go to Washington. When I sense that someone is a satanic devil worshiper, hell bent on destroying America, then I will donate money to their opposition. I did this for someone in Virginia last year. Virginia is 2700 miles from where I live. I will also bad mouth people I don't like, to death, both here and on Facebook. Hell hath now fury like a woman scorned, nor OmCheeto pissed off.

ps. I'd rather spend 90% of my time studying science, than political science.

pps. And since I'm not following any of your arguments, I don't feel I'm learning anything, nor do I find this entertaining. So I will unsubscribe from this thread, effective, now.

 

[Czcibor]

Initially all animals are allowed to propose actions and vote on actions at council meetings. However the pigs are more intelligent and tend to be the ones that propose actions. Eventually the pigs argue it would be more efficient if only pigs were allowed to propose actions but all animals can vote. The they change it to just pigs voting. Then they remove the right to view council discussions. Essentially they slide from productive members of a democracy to a ruling oligarch that takes care of itself. A valuable warning over how non democratic systems have fewer checks and balances.

I admit, you have very original interpretation. The more usual is warning about communism, that starts from nice egalitarian ideas. Taking into account Orwell engagement in Spanish civil war and his experience with being attacked by units backed by the SU, I'm afraid that the second interpretation is closer to his goal.

You're making it more difficult than this needs to be. By my moral standards democracies are more moral.

Why should morality be measured by your standards? And not by mine? Or not by some standards of some other third party? (including third parties that are not necessary alive today)

You're conflating the issues of individual democratic systems with democracy as a category of government.

So your point is that in idealized democracy, which exist as kind of immortal Platonic idea we don't have this issue? So the problem and lack of morality exists only in real life democracies? Well, we might actually be approaching a common ground here.

(My bold)

I was using hyperbole to make the point that there is no good test to choose who deserves to vote.

To me this is an argument for increasing education across the board. Not just allowing the educated to vote because there's no check against the meritocrats becoming oligarchs and gaming the system for their continued advantage, there's no good way of evaluating who should get the vote, people have different moral systems and there's no reason to choose one over the other just because of education (e.g imagine a country where private religious schools have more resources per student and so have a disproportionate amount of power in politics that could be used to impose said religion's moral teachings over the rest of society) and lastly I don't see a way in which any society today can transition to a meritocratic one given that education is not fairly distributed now. Change now and you're likely to get a system wherein wealthy white demographics are more likely to be represented without any check.

You neither have a good test for quite many features including who should get citizenship. I think for example of US using "wet feet, dry feet policy". Also we might wonder why the threshold should be 18 years. (Not mentioning that in a few years ago in Poland Civic Platform suggested lowering the threshold to 16, while in Germany FDP suggested granting the law also to children regardless of their age, however the law would be exercised by their parents) That's purely arbitrary distinction, just you are used to one of possible combination and treat it as granted.

Concerning winning election - actually religious people tend to have more children which also might have impact on election. in Israel Chasids by higher fertility rate are increasing their share in next election, what presumably in long run would be more harmful for Israel than a few Palestinians launching rockets.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we use US politics as example and people with higher education as kind of approximation you would actually as result get a landslide election for Obama, and congress with Democrats majority which wouldn't be gridlocked. Doesn't look perfect, but I have to admit, that much better what you have now.

I think that you make one mistake here, you use word: "deserve". The point is not who deserve. The point is who will make the decision that would be most beneficial for common good.

Hypothetically a some random process can be used, as was in ancient Athens. Does the randomly selected people deserve more than those who have lost? No, but anyway could be used if that makes the system more effective. (ancient Athenians were afraid of political parties, thus selecting people by lots from citizens, they hoped to avoid that problem)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I admit, you have very original interpretation. The more usual is warning about communism, that starts from nice egalitarian ideas. Taking into account Orwell engagement in Spanish civil war and his experience with being attacked by units backed by the SU, I'm afraid that the second interpretation is closer to his goal.

How are they mutually exclusive?

Why should morality be measured by your standards? And not by mine? Or not by some standards of some other third party? (including third parties that are not necessary alive today)

Perhaps we're having a language problem here. I'm not advocating that my morality should be the one used by all, I made a judgement on the basis of my moral system and you said why that system? Because I'm making the judgement.

So your point is that in idealized democracy, which exist as kind of immortal Platonic idea we don't have this issue? So the problem and lack of morality exists only in real life democracies? Well, we might actually be approaching a common ground here.

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying you are bringing in discussions of different democracies into a general discussion of democracy and other systems without acknowledging that.

You neither have a good test for quite many features including who should get citizenship. I think for example of US using "wet feet, dry feet policy". Also we might wonder why the threshold should be 18 years. (Not mentioning that in a few years ago in Poland Civic Platform suggested lowering the threshold to 16, while in Germany FDP suggested granting the law also to children regardless of their age, however the law would be exercised by their parents) That's purely arbitrary distinction, just you are used to one of possible combination and treat it as granted.

How to decide citizenship and age restrictions are different issues than who should be allowed t vote. They're related but different so you can't make a comparison like you are doing. Regardless responding to the point "how would a meritocratic system choose who votes" with "other things in life are arbitrary" doesn't address the point.

Concerning winning election - actually religious people tend to have more children which also might have impact on election. in Israel Chasids by higher fertility rate are increasing their share in next election, what presumably in long run would be more harmful for Israel than a few Palestinians launching rockets.

So what? I fail to see your point here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we use US politics as example and people with higher education as kind of approximation you would actually as result get a landslide election for Obama, and congress with Democrats majority which wouldn't be gridlocked. Doesn't look perfect, but I have to admit, that much better what you have now.

Please provide a reference for this claim. Also this doesn't address the points I've made.

I think that you make one mistake here, you use word: "deserve". The point is not who deserve. The point is who will make the decision that would be most beneficial for common good.

So now you're arguing that there is a suitable test for determining who is better at making decisions for the "common good"?

Hypothetically a some random process can be used, as was in ancient Athens. Does the randomly selected people deserve more than those who have lost? No, but anyway could be used if that makes the system more effective. (ancient Athenians were afraid of political parties, thus selecting people by lots from citizens, they hoped to avoid that problem)

You haven't addressed my criticisms that I finished my last post with.

 

[jim hardy]

Wow glad you guys mentioned Animal Farm.
I just the other day found my copy - a 1946 printing .
My friends all read it and we are all amazed how relevant it is today in USA.

Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" is interesting read. As i recall he had only contempt for the communists because of their fickleness - they'd align with whoever served their need at the moment. He really disliked the fascists Hitler was backing.
Chapter eight describes his disilusionment with the return of class division to his socialist movement.
I think that's what planted the seeds of Animal Farm, and i think that book is about human nature more than communism. Clearly Napoleon is Stalin and Squealer is Pravda , and the message is 'dont think it can't happen here'.

just my thouhgts.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Clearly Napoleon is Stalin and Squealer is Pravda

Don't forget Snowball as Trotsky

 

[Czcibor]

How are they mutually exclusive?

He wrote about communism and you work hard to misinterpret it to fit your point.

Perhaps we're having a language problem here. I'm not advocating that my morality should be the one used by all, I made a judgement on the basis of my moral system and you said why that system? Because I'm making the judgement.

OK, but if that's your private belief why use it as argument that is supposed to convince me?

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying you are bringing in discussions of different democracies into a general discussion of democracy and other systems without acknowledging that.

I brought the subject how democratic process really looks like.

How to decide citizenship and age restrictions are different issues than who should be allowed t vote. They're related but different so you can't make a comparison like you are doing. Regardless responding to the point "how would a meritocratic system choose who votes" with "other things in life are arbitrary" doesn't address the point.

But only citizens of certain age are allowed to vote. That's exactly the problem - who is allowed to vote.

That's merely mentioning "how republic chooses who votes".

So what? I fail to see your point here.

You are outraged that good religious schools (all those evil Jesuits ;) ) theoretically could be able to influence election in such meritocracy, while the fact that varied reproduction rate between religion anyway does influence outcome of election in republic in favour of more fertile religion does not bother you, so I can not consider your argument too seriously.

Please provide a reference for this claim. Also this doesn't address the points I've made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...ates#General_attainment_of_degrees.2Fdiplomas
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls
I used M.A and above as approximation of what the top 20% would vote, which covers only 11% of US population.

So now you're arguing that there is a suitable test for determining who is better at making decisions for the "common good"?

Yes, I've been saying that for a while, it's nice that you finally understood that.

Well, I assume that if a person has problem with basic math, then he wouldn't the best person to discuss subject of budget. When a person has problems to find a country on a map, then such person would not be the best at shaping foreign policy.

Or maybe the two above sentences are wrong? And person who don't distinguishing Iran from Iraq can make comparably good decision concerning which to invade?

Yes, that's basic reading, math and test on basic knowledge (at best with some history and economics). I'm not arguing that this is perfect, merely that on average people with knowledge should make more reasonable decision than those without knowledge.

You haven't addressed my criticisms that I finished my last post with.

You mean the fact that that education is not equally distributed in US between races? To be honest I consider that as partially shortfall of US democracy and partially as outcome of inertia. (In the same way as in India Sikhs are still overrepresented in military because so was during British colonial rule)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

He wrote about communism and you work hard to misinterpret it to fit your point.

I'm not misinterpreting it but borrowing its message because it does apply: take away the voting rights of the people and you can sleep walk into an authoritarian nightmare.

OK, but if that's your private belief why use it as argument that is supposed to convince me?

Because I think many people would agree with me that democracies are more moral because it is moral to give people the right to have a say in how their country is run.

I brought the subject how democratic process really looks like.

There is no one democratic process.

So what? I fail to see your point here.

It's quite simple: the fact we have reasons to restrict citizenship and define adulthood are tangential to who deserves the vote. Furthermore you fail to give a good proposal for how to determine who gets to vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...ates#General_attainment_of_degrees.2Fdiplomas
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls
I used M.A and above as approximation of what the top 20% would vote, which covers only 11% of US population.

So you are arguing that having a degree means you are in the top 20% of intelligence? I definitely don't agree with that.

Yes, I've been saying that for a while, it's nice that you finally understood that

Where exactly have you outlined such a system?

Well, I assume that if a person has problem with basic math, then he wouldn't the best person to discuss subject of budget. When a person has problems to find a country on a map, then such person would not be the best at shaping foreign policy.

Or maybe the two above sentences are wrong? And person who don't distinguishing Iran from Iraq can make comparably good decision concerning which to invade?

Yes, that's basic reading, math and test on basic knowledge (at best with some history and economics). I'm not arguing that this is perfect, merely that on average people with knowledge should make more reasonable decision than those without knowledge.

All I'm seeing here is an argument for why people who work in government should be chosen on meritocratic principles. It's all very well and simplistic to say "if you can't count you shouldn't be finance minister" but what criteria would you have for deciding who gets to vote for a party/candidate on financial grounds? Especially as matters like this are not entirely objective. Take for instance the difference in ideology between US libertarians and liberals. It's not always a case of right or wrong.

You mean the fact that that education is not equally distributed in US between races? To be honest I consider that as partially shortfall of US democracy and partially as outcome of inertia. (In the same way as in India Sikhs are still overrepresented in military because so was during British colonial rule)

I'm not American so not focusing on the US but speaking generally about the west (though it applies to most nations: education is not evenly distributed). Regardless you again fail to address my point but dance around it: if you advocate that education credentials can show who the top 20% are how will you account for founding inequalities if a meritocratic society was formed from a contemporary western democracy now?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I can see this going round in circles for a while so why don't we just get stuck into the biggest issue?

1) What criteria do you propose could be used to select this 20%?

2) What arguments do you have to support the notion that the 20% would make things better for the majority of people by the definitions of the majority?

 

[Czcibor]

Because I think many people would agree with me that democracies are more moral because it is moral to give people the right to have a say in how their country is run.

So your point is that contemporary there is such belief? Yes, I agree there is such a belief nowadays. In the same way as there used to be such belief in past concerning monarchies (actually, Montesquieu considered monarchy as more moral than democracy, it sounds cute nowadays; I wouldn't mention Plato because you already mentioned his philosopher kings, so that would be redundant).

So you are arguing that having a degree means you are in the top 20% of intelligence? I definitely don't agree with that.

Well, I don't mind if you don't agree with a statement which I'm not arguing.
You merely asked for any approximate data concerning how potential outlook of such election could look like. So I took the only available data. No such test is applied nowadays.

Where exactly have you outlined such a system?

Starting post:

As the way of measuring that merit should be applied standardized tests, including math, logical thinking, understanding written texts and basic knowledge.

Later I expanded mentioning that such test could be by occasion used at end of secondary school, to make people motivated enough to try to pass it. (but it could be taken also on demand)

All I'm seeing here is an argument for why people who work in government should be chosen on meritocratic principles. It's all very well and simplistic to say "if you can't count you shouldn't be finance minister" but what criteria would you have for deciding who gets to vote for a party/candidate on financial grounds? Especially as matters like this are not entirely objective. Take for instance the difference in ideology between US libertarians and liberals. It's not always a case of right or wrong.

But at election day I have to asses that politician. If I don't understand foreign policy I might consider quite talented diplomat as unpatriotic coward, and vote against him.
I should mention how unpopular was politician (Leszek Balcerowicz) in my country who was responsible for introducing free market reforms and combating hyperinflation - majority of my compatriots expected that such things could have been done painlessly, so he effectively earned a hate week. (His wife even had to use her maiden name, to avoid negative association with him)

Have you seen pools, in which Americans have to describe how according to them the federal budget looks like? You would be impressed how much they believe that their gov gives in foreign aid. ;)
(no, that's not mocking Americans, I doubt that in my country we would get more reasonable answers)

I'm not American so not focusing on the US but speaking generally about the west (though it applies to most nations: education is not evenly distributed). Regardless you again fail to address my point but dance around it: if you advocate that education credentials can show who the top 20% are how will you account for founding inequalities if a meritocratic society was formed from a contemporary western democracy now?

I do not advocate education credentials, but exactly to avoid that - a standardized test. Which inequalities I should account for?

As argument I would like to give from Steven Pinker's book The Better Angels of Our Nature, the arguments that he gave at the end of the book concerning higher intelligence and higher willingness to cooperate, lower likeness to go to war and higher tolerance to others.

(Technical question to you as moderator - it's not a public domain, how should I give a link to that? I feel that I can either risk not backing my claims or even worse giving link to pirate site - I would like to avoid both)

 

[Travis_King]

New to the argument, decided to jump in here. Though, I agree that the main parties in this argument should attempt to focus on the main points. I wanted to address a few though.

So your point is that contemporary there is such belief? Yes, I agree there is such a belief nowadays. In the same way as there used to be such belief in past concerning monarchies (actually, Montesquieu considered monarchy as more moral than democracy, it sounds cute nowadays; I wouldn't mention Plato because you already mentioned his philosopher kings, so that would be redundant).

I don't think this is a question of who thinks what.
It is more moral to allow people the opportunity to:

a) voice their concerns and opinions on matters of state, no matter how educated or politically aware they are.

b) have their voices matter in a tangible way, even if it is to a small extent.

Later I expanded mentioning that such test could be by occasion used at end of secondary school, to make people motivated enough to try to pass it. (but it could be taken also on demand)

Are the learning disabled any less reliable to make decisions for the common good.
Let's not debate mentally handicapped persons as I don't want to open up a can of worms, but those who are in standard level classes yet have difficulty learning and can't pass the test?

Education does not imply utilitarianism. Educated people can be just as arrogant, indecent, uncaring, and selfish as anyone; and many sociopaths and psycopaths are quite educated indeed.

Passing a history exam and learning how to do your ten times tables doesn't necessarily qualify you as a better voter than anyone else.

But at election day I have to asses that politician. If I don't understand foreign policy I might consider quite talented diplomat as unpatriotic coward, and vote against him.

And what makes you think that this test would assure that these people will do their due dilligence? What makes you think that after passing, these people won't just fall back into their political allegiences?

Have you seen pools, in which Americans have to describe how according to them the federal budget look like? You would be impressed how much they believe that their gov gives in foreign aid. ;)

Yea, it's pretty off, and that stems from a lack of understanding of budget allocations. People hear dollar amounts and don't realize that these amount to peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

But how many of those people surveyed fall into your 20%?

I'm willing to bet that not all, or even most, of those people are living in moonshine shacks in West Virginia.

I do not advocate education credentials, but exactly to avoid that - a standardized test. Which inequalities I should account for?

But this is exactly what the biggest issue is. A standardized test means that those who go to wealthier schools with better teachers, better books, better resources, etc. will be much more likely to be accepted into this oligarchical meritocracy than people of lower income. Which, as LisaB pointed out, will allow (not necessitate) the corrupt to further widen the gap between the wealthy and poor through funding cuts and education reforms, etc. and the poor would slowly lose their voice to do anything about it.

With all that said, I would not object to having to pass some sort of test regarding basic foreign politics and geography, economics (basic understanding), our current US (I'm a US citizen, insert any country there) political and budgetary approach, and such to get voting rights.

 

[Mentalist]

William Shockley, James Watson, Charles Darwin, R.L. Moore... Know what, I found a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

So, I disagree with, "higher intelligence means more tolerant and less likely to go to war." For war, it depends on interest. If there is nothing in it, then war is less likely, however, if there is something to gain, it becomes more likely.

I disagree and agree with specific points on the topic. The more literate and reasoned people should be allowed to vote (keeping everything else constant), however those unable to vote should have representatives that speak for their interests, etc... If we discount those unable to vote (I'd probably make it in that bunch if the test is multiple choice), then who will represent us? We would need to rely entirely on the "elite" to consider our interests. When living in a centralized place of like-minded people, you tend to fall into specific outlooks that seem reasonable to everyone that is within the group, however, it is unreasonable to everyone else, thus it turns chaotic later on.

 

[Evo]

however those unable to vote should have representatives that speak for their interests, etc... If we discount those unable to vote (I'd probably make it in that bunch if the test is multiple choice), then who will represent us?

So, on one hand you agree a certain group isn't smart enough to vote, but you want this group to be represented. Would you elect this representative? I guess you want this representative to carry weight proportionate to the number of people that can't vote, so as to be fair to them. Wait, you can't vote.

 

[Mentalist]

I was thinking it would act more like a government union where the employee (in this case, the people unable to vote) don't necessarily elect their representative but the representative votes and debates on their behalf in political matters.

 

[Travis_King]

I was thinking it would act more like a government union where the employee (in this case, the people unable to vote) don't necessarily elect their representative but the representative votes and debates on their behalf in political matters.

If we are to even contemplate the merits of this proposition, wouldn't it have to be a fundamental part of this system that all voters are supposed to have the well being of those unable to vote in mind?

If you require representatives to fight for the non-voters, then doesn't that mean that you don't trust the voters to do the responsible thing, thus negating the primary motivation for the system?

 

[Evo]

I was thinking it would act more like a government union where the employee (in this case, the people unable to vote) don't necessarily elect their representative but the representative votes and debates on their behalf in political matters.

This isn't true, government union employees do elect their representatives.

Standards of conduct provisions, formerly set forth in sec. 18 of EO 11491, have been incorporated into the CSRA under sec. 7120. Similar provisions for labor organizations representing members of the Foreign Service in the Department of State and in other agencies are contained in sec. 1017 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (FSA), 22 U.S.C. 4117. Regulations pertaining to these provisions have been issued by the Assistant Secretary for Labor-Management Standards (Assistant Secretary). These regulations incorporate many LMRDA provisions, particularly those related to elections of union officers and to reporting, making them applicable to unions subject to the CSRA or FSA. For example, the regulations include provisions on a bill of rights for union members, on the election of union officers, and on the reporting of union finances.

http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/rights_resps.htm

 

[mheslep]

I was thinking it would act more like a government union where the employee (in this case, the people unable to vote) don't necessarily elect their representative but the representative votes and debates on their behalf in political matters.

My bold

This isn't true, government union employees do elect their representatives.

http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/rights_resps.htm

And elsewhere on the DoL site:

Professional and other staff members of a union need not be elected if they do not determine policy but are employed only to carry out the union's policy decisions. These persons are subject to the control and direction of the elected officials, and the act does not require such professional or other staff members to be elected.

The act does not require elections for union officials who do not perform executive functions, are not officers under the constitution and bylaws, and are not members of the executive committee or similar governing body of the union.

I'm unaware of any examples in existing unions.

 

[Evo]

My bold



And elsewhere on the DoL site:


I'm unaware of any examples in existing unions.

Did you have a point? Sure, not everyone in the union is elected. In your quote

Professional and other staff members of a union need not be elected if they do not determine policy but are employed only to carry out the union's policy decisions. These persons are subject to the control and direction of the elected officials

Bolding mine.