News Would a Meritocratic Republic Outperform Contemporary Democracies?

[Zarqon]

I see most people that argue against meritocracy in this thread have arguements against the more extreme form of it, when some parts of the population are shut out from the entire voting process.

However, it seems to me that most of those arguements lose validity if you consider the softer forms of it, i.e. when you have a requirement to vote based on something like a specific education level or a specialized course. In this case everyone has the possiblity to pass the requirements, regardless of what they started as, which means that everyone has the possibility to vote if it's important enough to them.

In this version of it, you never shut anyone out permanently, thus maintaining democracy, but what you gain is that the average voter will make a more informed decision (because I don't think anyone can argue getting educated makes you less informed?) and a more informed decision should never be worse.

 

[Czcibor]

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.

When a person decides matters of his own life, when makes his own decisions, takes the risk and gains possible benefits - there I indeed see his freedom. When takes part in voting where there is a tiny group - then indeed his views still matters. However, where takes part in election in which millions - he has no effective influence on the final decision (I've seen once calculation for US that is less probable to cast a vote that would affect the outcome of presidential election, then to die in car accident on the way to pools)

When anyway decision concerning your life will be done effectively by someone else, then a question appears - who do you want to make it in your name? Would you prefer a to select at random representative sample from whole your population or only from more educated part?

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?

Can a seriously physically disabled person be a hard line patriot? Can such person be even willing to die for his country? Does it mean that such person would be very useful soldier on the front line?

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.

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?

My line of reasoning here is the following:
If a person simply can't do due diligence, than such person wouldn't do that. Assuming that a person is able do to do due diligence, then he would either do that or not, both events have probability above 0. Assuming that I eliminate from sample people who would automatically fail, the overall answer should improve.
The system should be improvement not if there would be no jerks among more educated people, but also when the percentage of jerks among is not higher than in general population.

Concerning erroneous assumption and attempts to adjust that, have you read "The myth of rational voter"?

They tried to adjust what would economist Ph.D. would believe if they had features (ex. income) of average voter.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa594.pdf

(EDIT: That's Cato, so they took it for granted that only more market is the answer for problem they nicely proved in research)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

They tried to adjust what would economist Ph.D. would believe if they had features (ex. income) of average voter.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa594.pdf

This is a very bias source that is trying to support the idea that a free market system would be better for everyone but the public are too ignorant to see it.

 

[Czcibor]

This is a very bias source that is trying to support the idea that a free market system would be better for everyone but the public are too ignorant to see it.

(EDIT: That's Cato, so they took it for granted that only more market is the answer for problem they nicely proved in research)

Yes, so don't follow their conclusion, but merely the way in which they tested how views change with increased knowledge, and even trying to explain that's just as matter of more income failed.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, so don't follow their conclusion, but merely the way in which they tested how views change with increased knowledge, and even trying to explain that's just as matter of more income failed.

Perhaps I've missed it because I've only skimmed but where is the methods section where they explain in detail how they came by the charts they are using? At the moment all they have is some bar charts showing that a group labeled "enlightened public" agree more with economists than the public but I can't see an explanation of what enlightened is, who was in this survey, how many people, discussions of the limitations etc.

What I'm trying to get at is you realize this isn't a peer-reviewed, credible source right? Is woefully limited and biased.

 

[Czcibor]

Perhaps I've missed it because I've only skimmed but where is the methods section where they explain in detail how they came by the charts they are using? At the moment all they have is some bar charts showing that a group labeled "enlightened public" agree more with economists than the public but I can't see an explanation of what enlightened is, who was in this survey, how many people, discussions of the limitations etc.

What I'm trying to get at is you realize this isn't a peer-reviewed, credible source right? Is woefully limited and biased.

So your point is that Cato Institute is evil. I understood it.

Quoting the article:

To estimate the beliefs of the enlightened public, I first regressed economic beliefs on respondents’ characteristics, including income, job security, income growth, sex, race, party identification, ideology, education, and “econ” (a dummy variable equal to 1 if the respondent is an economist, and 0 otherwise).
Then, for each equation, I calculated the predicted belief assuming a respondent had the general public’s average income, job security, income growth, sex, race, party identification, and ideology, combined with a PhD in economics

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So your point is that Cato Institute is evil. I understood it.

No...are you trying to troll? If not why are you deliberately misinterpreting what I've said?

Quoting the article:

Where does that quote explain what determines that someone is enlightened?

 

[Czcibor]

No...are you trying to troll? If not why are you deliberately misinterpreting what I've said?

No, I'm just a bit annoyed that you put impressively high effort into discrediting the article, while relatively limited into just reading it (and maybe then showing its shortcomings).

Where does that quote explain what determines that someone is enlightened?

It simply explains how opinion of hypothetical "enlightened public" is calculated, based on regression model.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

No, I'm just a bit annoyed that you put impressively high effort into discrediting the article, while relatively limited into just reading it (and maybe then showing its shortcomings).

Lol that wasn't impressively high effort and considering I started my comment with a clarification your hyperbole and annoyance seem unnecessary

It simply explains how opinion of hypothetical "enlightened public" is calculated, based on regression model.

Do you not see anything wrong with this? Like how there is no real data being discussed?

 

[Czcibor]

Do you not see anything wrong with this? Like how there is no real data being discussed?

What do you mean by real data? You want to see his raw data and check whether regression was done correctly?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What do you mean by real data? You want to see his raw data and check whether regression was done correctly?

No I mean that he hasn't defined enlightened public then gone out to see if data in the real world matches his predictions.

 

[Czcibor]

No I mean that he hasn't defined enlightened public then gone out to see if data in the real world matches his predictions.

So you expect him to find a purely hypothetical beings in real world?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So you expect him to find a purely hypothetical beings in real world?

No, I expect that if you are going to argue that society would be better off if only select individuals were allowed to vote you support it with more than "according to this model hypothetical 'enlightened' members of the public would agree more with economists."

 

[BobG]

Would it be wrong to require people to pass a US citizenship test before being given the right to vote?

US Citizenship Practice Tests

Hopefully, being able to vote wouldn't be a very exclusive club, but it would probably be more exclusive than one would think.

Totally off topic, but why do you only need 60% to pass the US Citizenship test and 75% to pass the Canadian Citizenship test? (I, unfortunately, came up just short of passing the Canadian test, but at least I knew Canada's favorite sport! But why do you need to know Canada's favorite sport in order to become a citizen? And why did I choose Alberta as my home province anyway?! I missed every question on Alberta!)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Totally off topic, but why do you only need 60% to pass the US Citizenship test and 75% to pass the Canadian Citizenship test? (I, unfortunately, came up just short of passing the Canadian test, but at least I knew Canada's favorite sport! But why do you need to know Canada's favorite sport in order to become a citizen? And why did I choose Alberta as my home province anyway?! I missed every question on Alberta!)

Citizen ship tests are notoriously weird in the UK. Here it's popular every now and then for newspapers to print a selection of questions to see if people can answer them. Invariably most get low scores because of esoteric questions about points of British history or the like that no one ever hears about except once in school.

For example http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/quiz/2012/jul/05/uk-citizenship-test

 

[mheslep]

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

Not, "not everyone in the union", but the full time professional staff and non-executive union officials need not be elected, which might mean a very large bureaucracy. The job titles for a lot of these staff folks include the term https://careers-seiu.icims.com/jobs/1409/bilingual-spanish-union-representative---organizer/job, even if the law means something else when using the term.

 

[nanosiborg]

-better educated portion of population should in general make better decisions;

Depends on biases and agendas, as well as available alternatives. Eg., if there's no substantial difference between alternative candidate choices, and I think this is the case in many (most?) elections, then a coin flip is sufficient.

-better educated people should be in general harder to mislead in add campaign,

Again, depends on biases and agendas of voters. The better educated among us are also biased. They're just better at rationalizing and defending their biases.

thus financing add campaigns would be less tempting;

Candidates are spending other people's money. Ad volume won't decrease, imo, though ad content might be different.

-better educated people in general tend to prefer more moderate positions;

Not necessarily true. Maybe it's definitely not true. Don't know. Gazillions of counterexamples.

-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);

This is true, but not clear how this affects what one needs to know to make a choice between two candidates. Just being more educated in general, in the things you mentioned that might be tested, wouldn't necessarily make a difference. Anyway, one could cite many examples of people looking at exactly the same information and coming to opposite conclusions about it.

-we don't mind to test someone skills before giving him driving licence, while creating reasonable policy is harder than driving;

Bad comparison. Voting is a fundamental 'right' that people have sacrificed their lives to bring about. Driving isn't.

It isn't clear what benefits, if any, might result from limiting the voting pool to a certain % of the population by way of some sort of test. One negative effect would be the massive disenfranchisement of the general population leading to unpredictable forms and magnitudes of social unrest and conflict.

Can't answer your OP question, but it seems like a bad idea to me.

 

[Czcibor]

Depends on biases and agendas, as well as available alternatives. Eg., if there's no substantial difference between alternative candidate choices, and I think this is the case in many (most?) elections, then a coin flip is sufficient.

Well, if that what you say concerning coin is true, then I don't see special need of democracy. One respectable civil servant with a coin (plus a few journalist that would videorecord that) would be sufficient and much cheaper than a whole election campaign.

(you may even try to justify that like Coptic Church which select their pope by lots and claim that such choice is made by God ;) )

Again, depends on biases and agendas of voters. The better educated among us are also biased. They're just better at rationalizing and defending their biases.

Do you think that the may be less biased?

Candidates are spending other people's money. Ad volume won't decrease, imo, though ad content might be different.

So at best only brighter political adds?

Not necessarily true. Maybe it's definitely not true. Don't know. Gazillions of counterexamples.

Well, I would not ask you to post here gazillions of counterexamples. (that could presumably crash the forum as DOS attack :D ) However, I would be curious to see at least one or at best a few. But of a aggregated data. Where do you find a case where better educated people select more radical or less responsible idea/party than the general population?

As an example I use my fatherland (Poland) with multiparty system and compare three parties:
- PiS (Law and Justice) - nationalistic, religious, economically rather left wing (or left wing when it's matter of gov expenditures, while right wing when its matter of taxes and it don't see here any contradiction)
- PO (Civic Platform) - started as free market, moderately right wing on social issues. On its way towards power it became centrist.
- RP (Palikot's Movement) - started lead by businessman who decided to become a celebrity. It's all ideology revolves around being against Roman Catholic Church, so left wing on social issues. Undecided on economic issues.
I ignore here PSL (peasant party) and SLD (theoretically former communists but in practice an ideology free party).

PiS and PO are the main parties. With increased education the support for PO increases (among people with higher education the relation is 2:1 for them, while for people who lack finished secondary education it loses 1:2) So maybe secular ideology among better educated people? Not specially - anti-church RP maintains roughly the same support regardless of education.

I may find you links to pools, but they would be in Polish. If you want to use Google translate to check me - feel free to ask.

Maybe Polish politics is unrepresentative. However, I'm quite curious in which countries the outcome would be exactly opposite.

Bad comparison. Voting is a fundamental 'right' that people have sacrificed their lives to bring about. Driving isn't.

Why it is a fundamental right?
(Yes, seriously, how is that determined what's fundamental right is, and why first world countries tend to have different ideas what's a fundamental right - right to bear arms - USA vs. Japan or right to live - provided by gov health care insurance USA vs. EU)

Also to add - independence is (was?) also a fundamental right for which generations of my compatriots were sacrificing their lives. (you don't want a long lecture about all hopeless insurgencies and repressions after them, do you?) At the moment they all seem even more futile when EU evolves from a free trade area to a federation.

Technically speaking - using as argument the fact that lives were sacrificed for something isn't a sunk cost fallacy?

 

[Czcibor]

I've found data for Germany - support of party, pending on education
http://fss.plone.uni-giessen.de/fss...zen unterschiedlicher Bevölkerungsgruppen.pdf

Guess which party has the least educated electorate?

(page 5, neonazi NPD)

 

[nanosiborg]

Well, if that what you say concerning coin is true, then I don't see special need of democracy.

The "special need" of a democracy is that it gives a populace some measure of control over potentially abusive politicians. Two candidates being virtually identical doesn't erase the value of universal suffrage to a society.

Do you think that the [better educated] may be less biased?

Not necessarily. Eg., the members of the US congress.

So at best only brighter political adds?

Yes, more sophisticated, high end or upscale. Primarily to keep a candidate in the public consciousness. It might even result in more money being spent on ads.

However, I would be curious to see at least one or at best a few. But of a aggregated data. Where do you find a case where better educated people select more radical or less responsible idea/party than the general population?

David Duke (LSU class of 1974) former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. G.W. Bush (Yale class of 1968) former US president, and born again Christian fundamentalist. Noam Chomsky, Harvard professor and radical political commentator. The aggregate of highly educated people in favor of marijuana legalization. The US congress. Etc. Etc.

Why it is a fundamental right?

In a country with universal suffrage, voting is a more or less fundamental right. Silly to nitpick this. I'm sure you understand the different values placed on voting and driving.

 

[Czcibor]

Not necessarily. Eg., the members of the US congress.

Actually, you show here shortcomings of democracy - general population is able to select out of their elites actually the less desirable people.

David Duke (LSU class of 1974) former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. G.W. Bush (Yale class of 1968) former US president, and born again Christian fundamentalist. Noam Chomsky, Harvard professor and radical political commentator. The aggregate of highly educated people in favor of marijuana legalization. The US congress. Etc. Etc.

But you play here cherry picking. Yes, you can find a well educated freak. Does it prove your point? You can also find a poorly educated freak. Does it prove my point?

What matters is part of proportion - would the percentage of freakish ideas move down? So far I have shown two cases (Poland, Germany) where that what I say work. You mentioned support for legalised marijuana. May you go into details? (ex. why its a bad idea including that so far the alternative was imprisoning both sellers and users; why it should be illegal while alcohol and tobacco is legal; If we had to select as least harmful two psychoactive substances to be legal as recreation drug would we actually chooses alcohol and nicotine?)

In a country with universal suffrage, voting is a more or less fundamental right. Silly to nitpick this.

Maybe it is silly to use circular reasoning? In the same way as considering as self evident fact that in monarchy throne has to be pass to the oldest son of the monarch. (It neither proves that the new heir is the most competent candidate for being monocrat, nor that the whole monarchy is the best idea)

I'm sure you understand the different values placed on voting and driving.

Higher sentimental value that outweighs practical arguments? Part of national identity in the US?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Maybe it is silly to use circular reasoning? In the same way as considering as self evident fact that in monarchy throne has to be pass to the oldest son of the monarch. (It neither proves that the new heir is the most competent candidate for being monocrat, nor that the whole monarchy is the best idea)

I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse in not understanding why voting is considered a fundamental modern right. The reason is to after a long history of dictatorship there were many forms of revolution in different societies because those small groups with a disproportionate amount of power abused it. The best check against tyranny is a democracy. What's to stop a meritocracy forming into an aristocracy? What checks and balances prevent this? The argument that intelligent people tend to be more moderate (which I'm still not convinced by if only because moderate is a relative, subjective term) isn't enoug to guarantee that after a few generations those with privilege of voting won't have gamed the system for their benefit. I doubt they'd even think of it as bad any more than an heir to a thrown would have.

As a thought experiment why don't you look to the countries of the Arab spring and see if they would be better served by a meritocracy? Given the huge diversity of cultures and ideologies try and see if you can come up with a system that doesn't just repeat the same old disenfranchisement.

 

[nanosiborg]

Czcibor, before we continue our discussion of your reasons for liking the idea of a test that would greatly reduce the voter pool, and assuming that no new problems are created that are attributable to abuses by the meritocracy itself, I would like to ask:

1. What specific existing problems would a meritocracy be uniquely able to solve?

That is, voters in the meritocratic system will still be functionaries of essentially the same political system which elects to public office candidates of the two major parties, Republicans and Democrats, almost exclusively. Given that the existing system is the system which has created our current problems, I can understand how belief in the possibilility of systematically legislated positive change might result from significantly modifying the affiliations and affinities of the candidate pool -- but what sorts of positive changes might be expected from modifying the minimum education level of the voter pool?

(Keeping in mind that any projected positive changes will be evaluated in conjunction with risks entailed by the national scale massive disenfranchisement which would inevitably result from implementation of a voter selection process such as you endorse.)

 

[Skrew]

At creation the voting system in America was different. You had to be a white male landowner to vote. For the landownership requirement, the idea was to make sure only people who had a vested interest in the country succeeding could influence it.

I don't think it should be put into place now(at least not without significant other changes such as removal of the draft).

I would support having to prove your citizenship and a basic understanding of what's being voted on.

 

[BobG]

I would support having to prove your citizenship and a basic understanding of what's being voted on.

Or who's being voted for?

One easy change would be to eliminate party designations on ballots. If the voter knows nothing of the candidate other than the letter after his name, then get rid of the letters so the ignorant votes cancel each other out.

Proving citizenship is a good idea, but doesn't really address any current problems - at least at the voting booth where voter fraud is extremely rare. What happens with absentee ballots is anyone's guess. Voter fraud on absentee ballots probably happens a lot more than voter fraud at the voting booth, whether it's benign (a parent filling in a ballot for their kid that's away at college over the phone and the only "fraud" is the signature) or a little more serious (filling the ballot for an elderly parent living in the home, filling out the ballot based of a kid away at college based on how the parent thinks the kid should vote, etc).

As for understanding what's being voted on, I'd be happy if voters understood the difference between an amendment to the state constitution and a law. But that's because I live in Colorado, which is probably the easiest state in the nation to get constitutional amendments on the ballot.

At least people seem to be learning, as frustration over so many constitutional amendments has risen in recent years. There were some really damaging amendments passed - perhaps not damaging in themselves, but a combination of amendments that put the state on a course towards disaster (a conservative amendment that chokes off revenue and a liberal amendment that guarantees increased spending, for example - dueling amendments don't cancel each other out - they combine to create chaos).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I've made this point somewhere else in the thread but listening to a lecture just now gave me a more concise way to voice this criticism: we need to take into account the difference between facts and values.

The former undoubtably informs the later to the extent that the higher quantity and quality of facts you possesses on an issue will make it easier and more reliable to decide what your values are. However the way facts affect values are different for different people based on the sum total of values and the moral system that gave rise to them.

It's this interplay between facts and values that brings about the oppressive nature of meritocracy. Think of a series of controversial issues: abortion, euthanasia, economic regulation vs economic freedom, environmentalism, animal rights, immigration, urbanisation, freedom of speech vs freedom from assault etc etc. Leaving aside that some of the time people take certain views because they are under or misinformed a lot of the time people can have access to the same set of facts but value them differently. For instance: some people's values dictate that universal healthcare is a good thing even if it costs a significant amount whereas others don't value universal healthcare and think that if you can't afford healthcare you can't afford it. There's no conflict of facts here, this isn't a case of experts versus laymen but of people having different values.

In a meritocracy as is described here there is no guarantee that the 80% will have their values listened to or represented. In effect the values of the 20% will be the only ones that matter.

 

[Zarqon]

I've made this point somewhere else in the thread but listening to a lecture just now gave me a more concise way to voice this criticism: we need to take into account the difference between facts and values.

The former undoubtably informs the later to the extent that the higher quantity and quality of facts you possesses on an issue will make it easier and more reliable to decide what your values are. However the way facts affect values are different for different people based on the sum total of values and the moral system that gave rise to them.

It's this interplay between facts and values that brings about the oppressive nature of meritocracy. Think of a series of controversial issues: abortion, euthanasia, economic regulation vs economic freedom, environmentalism, animal rights, immigration, urbanisation, freedom of speech vs freedom from assault etc etc. Leaving aside that some of the time people take certain views because they are under or misinformed a lot of the time people can have access to the same set of facts but value them differently. For instance: some people's values dictate that universal healthcare is a good thing even if it costs a significant amount whereas others don't value universal healthcare and think that if you can't afford healthcare you can't afford it. There's no conflict of facts here, this isn't a case of experts versus laymen but of people having different values.

In a meritocracy as is described here there is no guarantee that the 80% will have their values listened to or represented. In effect the values of the 20% will be the only ones that matter.

I agree with basic arguement, however, I've been trying to point out that a meritocratic system based on absolute requirements (such as a fixed level of education) makes more sense to argue about than does a system of relative requirements (such as 20% of the population). In the former case everyone is still allowed to vote, you just need to show that you're capable of understanding at least some facts first. In a a relative system you get exactly the problems you describe, but I think in an absolute system you can avoid them, because you're never excluding a class of people permanently.

Another point is that I do believe that some things that are considered values will change (read improve) with a rising education level. For example, how many people on these formums do you think are racist? I can't provide hard facts of course, but I'm willing to bet that it's substantially fewer than the average of the population as a whole. Education does improve peoples values towards what I would consider to be a better society, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Skrew]

I've made this point somewhere else in the thread but listening to a lecture just now gave me a more concise way to voice this criticism: we need to take into account the difference between facts and values.

The former undoubtably informs the later to the extent that the higher quantity and quality of facts you possesses on an issue will make it easier and more reliable to decide what your values are. However the way facts affect values are different for different people based on the sum total of values and the moral system that gave rise to them.

It's this interplay between facts and values that brings about the oppressive nature of meritocracy. Think of a series of controversial issues: abortion, euthanasia, economic regulation vs economic freedom, environmentalism, animal rights, immigration, urbanisation, freedom of speech vs freedom from assault etc etc. Leaving aside that some of the time people take certain views because they are under or misinformed a lot of the time people can have access to the same set of facts but value them differently. For instance: some people's values dictate that universal healthcare is a good thing even if it costs a significant amount whereas others don't value universal healthcare and think that if you can't afford healthcare you can't afford it. There's no conflict of facts here, this isn't a case of experts versus laymen but of people having different values.

In a meritocracy as is described here there is no guarantee that the 80% will have their values listened to or represented. In effect the values of the 20% will be the only ones that matter.

This is correct. I often see people wrongly believing that disagreement on the part of the other party is a result of ignorance. People can be presented with the same information and come to different conclusions.

If there was a way to test only the understanding of facts then I would support it but any other requirement comes down to supporting a set of beliefs or ideologies either directly or indirectly.

For example making education a requirement places arbitrary value on having completed the education system and results in a system biased in support of a certain belief. There are many people who are in complete understanding of the factual information on the issues being voted on but haven't pursued higher education for what ever reason.

Unfortunately even requiring an understanding of factual information is pretty fuzzy when it comes to what facts are important.

 

[nsaspook]

For example, how many people on these formums do you think are racist? I can't provide hard facts of course, but I'm willing to bet that it's substantially fewer than the average of the population as a whole. Education does improve peoples values towards what I would consider to be a better society, wouldn't you agree?

Would there be "affirmative action" in the meritocratic system and if there was not would it be racist not to have "affirmative meritocracy".

http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/expert/steele.html

 

[nazarbaz]

The democratic bias tend to stress on who is voting in the political organizations called democratic governments and societies : nowadays, informed analysts, and almost every intelligent person, know that the democratic ideals are mere theory or simply flawed. "Peoples" are not the main characters of history and voting does not enable them to do so, which does not mean that the formal functioning of actual democracies has no "good" or "bad" effects on ruling organizations.
All forms of political organization combine democratic elements and oligarchic ones. Determining the best form of governement will never have an absolute and defintive outcome or answer : every society and historical context will bring its own truth and its own "dosage" between elitist components and a much larger "participation". Personnally, I don't like democracy : for me, it's a primitive politcal ideology shaped by the historical and cultural context of the western european countries where "law" became the main balance to "absolute power" by emphasizing on mythological subjects (as "peoples") and features like "rational and individual choice".
When a governement or any form of collective power does not intend to be absolute and to "exert coercion on its people", democracy like we know it becomes far than sufficient for a society aiming to achieve better, or simply more suitable, standards of ruling and living. It is the system of demagogic efficiency since public relations becomes the main subject, mean and goal of politics, policy and polity : it's all appearance, imagery and clichés cynically maintained for their so called moderating effects on political behavior and not for their own value : voting is one of them. No elitist conspiracy behind this : a mix of belief, naïveté and lack of workable alternative make the force of the paradigm in a world where the success of capitalism makes the domination of the state, and exactly the democratic form of it, more or less acceptable.
I must be clear : if democracy is problematic, it's not because average citizens are not enough educated or qualified to "participate" in the political process (such judgments are meaningless). The stupidity of the political debate is a side effect of the democratic functioning : when the main goal of participation is to make people say yes or no, to push them into picking an option in a structured bi-partisan alternative, we must not be surprised by the general mediocrity of the political debate. The sense and intelligence of complexity is completely eluded in such systems.
Saying that there is only one way to organize a governement and a society is the very root and route of tyranny and imbecility. So Let's open our minds to new proposals while knowing very well that there's no such things as absolutely "legitimate, moral or rational governement" to obey to and will never be, except for political morons.

 

[caldweab]

You realize that type of thinking is exactly what led to the civil rights movement. Furthermore how can you say with certainty that just because someone can't pass an "applied exam" that they are not educated enough to review a candidates platform and vote for whoever best supports their needs? It's not really that complicated and even if they choose a candidate that doesn't support your views doesn't mean that they didn't make an educated and informed decision.

 

[Godeij]

My immediate response is no but then the argument is sound to a point for that exact reason. You only have to look through history to see the benefits and obvious downfalls to an elitist political system.

Better education for a shrinking labor force is long term but history has never been as capable as we are today to change a culture of mediocrity into something beautiful. This forum is firsthand proof of an evolving culture in terms of better education through communication.

newbie blissfulness

 

[~PN(~PN)]

Reformism is masochism. Our 'elected officials' are images of the universal influence and permeation of the dominant order and its' mechanisms- the autonomous economy. There's no need to train people to better spectate their own existences/consciousnesses, this is an unnecessary/confused argument.

 

[jim hardy]

Reformism is masochism. Our 'elected officials' are images of the universal influence and permeation of the dominant order and its' mechanisms- the autonomous economy. There's no need to train people to better spectate their own existences/consciousnesses, this is an unnecessary/confused argument.

I agree, but only with your last six words.

 

[~PN(~PN)]

I agree, but only with your last six words.

Could you please identify the respect(s) in which my statement is unnecessary/confused?

 

[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 dunno. You could look at systems in which only property owners could vote.

 

[BobG]

In the 1800's, education levels were generally low. I think it's safe to say that less than 10% of people graduated from high school (although education wasn't a high enough priority to keep statistics on in the 1800's, so it would be tough to verify that statement). Voter turnout was in the 70% to 80% range.

By 1940, 40% of kids graduated from high school. That still meant that over 70% of the population hadn't graduated from high school, since the emphasis on education was so recent (the first year that education levels were a high enough priority to be included in the census). Now, over 85% of the population are high school graduates. Voter turnout has ranged from 50% to 60% for most of the 20th century and later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections
http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/fig2.jpg

So associating higher education levels with voter responsibility may not be valid. It would be equally invalid to say higher education levels decrease voter responsibility.

It's more likely lower voter turnouts and higher education levels had a common cause, though. Increased urbanization requires higher education levels, but it also leaves the average person feeling less connected to his government and what the government does.

In a small town, a person might be pretty darn sure they don't want to vote Barney Fife for sheriff because they're afraid to let him carry a gun. In a large metropolis, the average voter doesn't really know the people he's voting for. He's relying on what other people say about him (and doesn't really know the people he's listening to, for that matter).

The disconnect between the average person and people in government bothers people regardless of their education level, but the response to that disconnect could be related to education level. That disconnect is part of the reason the idea of term limits are so popular and why even a city of 400,000 might only pay its city council members $7,000 a year. They don't like the idea of full time politicians that respond more to special interest groups padding their wallets than they do to voters. But it also glosses over the fact that policies like these tend to guarantee that their government will be run by amateurs with none to little experience running a city or state (and that's a naivity that could certainly be related to education level).

But, in general, I think you're attacking the wrong problem by focusing on education levels (but at least you only seem to be disenfranchising 30% of the population since half the people don't vote, anyway).

 

[jim hardy]

Could you please identify the respect(s) in which my statement is unnecessary/confused?

ipsa loquitor

 

[ImaLooser]

The big problem is what is "merit?" Inevitably the answer favors some group or the other.