Democratic Stupidity: can demographically representative voter classes save democracy?

[Trotsky]

This is by far the most illiberal and bourgeois topic I hope to ever discuss, but I think it's worth bouncing around. A recent thread by our own @Ghost in the Dark entitled Democracy doesn't work because most people are Stupid AF rehashed the ages-old argument against democracy, expressed in various terms by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, that humans are simply too impressionable, impulsive, intellectually lazy, and altogether stupid to handle governing themselves.

In this video (if it is the one I believe it is), Socrates' analogy of democracy to persons electing a minister of medicine is discussed: ignorant voters would be disproportionately drawn to a reductive message propagating a path of lesser resistance, such as consuming tasty but ineffective supposed medicines, over a more empirically sound method of treatment that involves pain or discomfort.
​

This pessimism about democratic self-governance has never felt more relevant than today, when the world's most powerful democracy has repeatedly voted for swindlers and thieves - and a near-plurality of the country's voters are in fact supporting policies that have expressly cut back on democracy, from racially charged voter purges and suppression to judicial legislating away of democratic rights in the area of collective bargaining and civil remedy.

However, it's difficult to imagine that any ancient philosopher or would-be political scientist could possibly imagine (a) the technological advancements in mass communication and intelligent consensus or (b) the great many strides that have been produced for humankind and human rights that democratic republics would achieve over the next millennium and change.


Equipped with knowledge of both the inherent virtues of democratic values in advancing popular interests and slowly redressing tyranny over society's most vulnerable persons and the inherent flaws of democracy in de-specializing knowledge for governance, some brainstorming could be of value.


So, with that in mind, is it possible -- or rather, preferable -- to consider something like a move toward demographically representative voter classes that are formulated to represent political interests such as religion, income, sex, and race? This would entail some sort of nonpartisan or bipartisan testing method - most obviously testing (a) knowledge of political facts and concepts and (b) intellectual ability generally - whereby a certain percentage (let's say the highest scoring 20%) of the population would be allowed to vote. Such a class would purport to represent the most qualified voters that are demographically representative of the country on bases of relevant demographics like religion, income, sex, and race.


Discuss.

 

[Trotsky]

@Lead please reply ban all of the posters who aren't in the top 20% of WR knowledge/intelligence, aka "the normies."

If you cannot estimate who belongs in that group, let's just play it conservatively and reply ban anyone who has ever posted in the meme thread.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

20% vote and the other 80% still keeps their guns. This could work.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Lead please reply ban all of the posters who aren't in the top 20% of WR knowledge/intelligence, aka "the normies."

If you cannot estimate who belongs in that group, let's just play it conservatively and reply ban anyone who has ever posted in the meme thread.

Or the military thread.

I think the idea is bad, though, Trotsky. Sorry.

I think the ideal is that people chose the outcomes they want through the democratic process and then we have technocrats figuring out how to achieve those outcomes.

 

[Fawlty]

A significant degree of populism is a necessary check and doing away with its only nonviolent tool (voting) is a supremely terrible idea. This also sounds like a Communist plot. But I'm intrigued by anything having to do with the organization of huge systems and I like the idea as a mental exercise. There is no way to narrow it down so I say define 20% abstractly as "people who would generally make the best decisions with the information available to them."


The most effective way to transfer power to the people who know better is to do it case-by-case with a limited scope. Examples of this include organizations like the FCC and functions like Inspectors General; unelected bodies that carry over somewhat across shifts in political power. Unions perform this function within their industries to good effect as well. What I'm saying is that there is a place for indirect kinds of "representative voting" and it is used effectively in a lot of areas already. When limited to areas where special knowledge is a benefit to trust, it's mostly a good thing.


I suspect that 20% is a big enough sample of the public that you would get about the same results. You'd probably see a slight progressive shift in areas like climate change, energy efficiency, infrastructure and civil rights, and a slight reduction in "identity politics" and other purely tribal political football shit. But I wouldn't expect that big a difference in terms of making better decisions, and there is no way it would offset the unrest from a natural disenfranchisement rate of 80%(!).

My prediction would be civil war even if the 20% made good decisions and were treating the bottom 80% just as well as they had been treated previously. Widescale corruption, polarized criminal justice outcomes, etc.

 

[Fawlty]

20% vote and the other 80% still keeps their guns. This could work.

At least you know where you stand.

 

[IDL]

If only there was a system that made the masses feel like they were in control, but they actually weren't.

 

[panamaican]

I'd support it because I know that I'd be in the 20%. Of course, that's exactly why it's a bad idea. The right to vote is extremely important and knowing that I'd be on the inside and not the outside is what makes such a philosophy attractive. It's tempting to believe that my overall judgment is good enough to make decisions for the other 80% but there's a lot of hubris in that position.

If I was on the outside, I'd immediately recognize the problem with losing my vote to someone deemed more valuable based on a metric not designed by me.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Starship Troopers.

Do you want to be a Citizen?!

 

[Rod1]

No, democracy works.

If you feel democracy is shit, is probably because your country is shit and you deserve what you get.

The only danger of democracy, is voting democracy out like it happened in Venezuela or Turkey.

 

[oldshadow]

Well that's why the founding fathers founded a democratic republic and not a pure democracy. Which is the correct answer to this and not trying to build your on caste system.

 

[ocean size]

Well that's why the founding fathers founded a democratic republic and not a pure democracy. Which is the correct answer to this and not trying to build your on caste system.

our politicians are too moneyed up is the problem.

I wonder what the 20% class would look like though - if their identities are known would they get showered in gifts on a smaller scale?

 

[leto1776]

Starship Troopers.

Do you want to be a Citizen?!

The system implied in Starship Troopers wasn’t reliant on intelligence. Citizenship was earned through voluntary service. If you read the book, it’s an attractive idea.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

our politicians are too moneyed up is the problem.

Wonder if that correlates with a massive increase in their power. At least on the federal level.

 

[oldshadow]

our politicians are too moneyed up is the problem.

I wonder what the 20% class would look like though - if their identities are known would they get showered in gifts on a smaller scale?

History says there would be revolution and war. People don't like being ruled over by "kings, queens and royalty".

 

[bobgeese]

Seems like educating the population is a more realistic goal.

 

[curryjunkie]

This is by far the most illiberal and bourgeois topic I hope to ever discuss, but I think it's worth bouncing around. A recent thread by our own @Ghost in the Dark entitled Democracy doesn't work because most people are Stupid AF rehashed the ages-old argument against democracy, expressed in various terms by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, that humans are simply too impressionable, impulsive, intellectually lazy, and altogether stupid to handle governing themselves.

In this video (if it is the one I believe it is), Socrates' analogy of democracy to persons electing a minister of medicine is discussed: ignorant voters would be disproportionately drawn to a reductive message propagating a path of lesser resistance, such as consuming tasty but ineffective supposed medicines, over a more empirically sound method of treatment that involves pain or discomfort.
​

This pessimism about democratic self-governance has never felt more relevant than today, when the world's most powerful democracy has repeatedly voted for swindlers and thieves - and a near-plurality of the country's voters are in fact supporting policies that have expressly cut back on democracy, from racially charged voter purges and suppression to judicial legislating away of democratic rights in the area of collective bargaining and civil remedy.

However, it's difficult to imagine that any ancient philosopher or would-be political scientist could possibly imagine (a) the technological advancements in mass communication and intelligent consensus or (b) the great many strides that have been produced for humankind and human rights that democratic republics would achieve over the next millennium and change.


Equipped with knowledge of both the inherent virtues of democratic values in advancing popular interests and slowly redressing tyranny over society's most vulnerable persons and the inherent flaws of democracy in de-specializing knowledge for governance, some brainstorming could be of value.


So, with that in mind, is it possible -- or rather, preferable -- to consider something like a move toward demographically representative voter classes that are formulated to represent political interests such as religion, income, sex, and race? This would entail some sort of nonpartisan or bipartisan testing method - most obviously testing (a) knowledge of political facts and concepts and (b) intellectual ability generally - whereby a certain percentage (let's say the highest scoring 20%) of the population would be allowed to vote. Such a class would purport to represent the most qualified voters that are demographically representative of the country on bases of relevant demographics like religion, income, sex, and race.


Discuss.

Human nature will find a way to subvert it for partisan gain and personal greed, so it ain't worth the hassle. I suggest the sherdog method where like counts and mod bans are taken into consideration, after all, politics is essentially shitpostimg at this point. On a more serious note, an intelligence test should be a voting requirement

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Lol at this HS level topic intended to be thought provoking pushed by a scrub poster who was recently converted by his marxist professor.

 

[Trotsky]

A significant degree of populism is a necessary check and doing away with its only nonviolent tool (voting) is a supremely terrible idea. This also sounds like a Communist plot.

Everything is a communist plot, from what I choose to have for lunch to what color of red tie I choose to wear to work.

The most effective way to transfer power to the people who know better is to do it case-by-case with a limited scope. Examples of this include organizations like the FCC and functions like Inspectors General; unelected bodies that carry over somewhat across shifts in political power. Unions perform this function within their industries to good effect as well. What I'm saying is that there is a place for indirect kinds of "representative voting" and it is used effectively in a lot of areas already. When limited to areas where special knowledge is a benefit to trust, it's mostly a good thing.

This seems like an especially bad argument to make right now given the various states of cannibalism in departments and agencies like the EPA, Education, and the Interior.

I suspect that 20% is a big enough sample of the public that you would get about the same results. You'd probably see a slight progressive shift in areas like climate change, energy efficiency, infrastructure and civil rights, and a slight reduction in "identity politics" and other purely tribal political football shit. But I wouldn't expect that big a difference in terms of making better decisions, and there is no way it would offset the unrest from a natural disenfranchisement rate of 80%(!).

My prediction would be civil war even if the 20% made good decisions and were treating the bottom 80% just as well as they had been treated previously. Widescale corruption, polarized criminal justice outcomes, etc.

I think the primary impediments to this type of concept would, throughout history, have been more administrative than political. With the ability to administrate membership/eligibility as frequently and as exhaustively as the public coin so desires, this is less of a concern. As a matter of politics, it's become increasingly evident that the franchise itself is only a (n increasingly?) partial part of the democratic process, as compared to political speech, whether through words, organization, or money.

But, on your point about civil war, with the complete perforation of the class (the purpose of the demographic requirements) into communities on bases of geography, economy, and sociopolitical life, the subsequent invisibility of the class itself, and with the ability to re-administrate class membership on as frequent a basis as is desired or is fiscally feasible, how do you think civil war foments?

I've also thought of this concept in terms of voting classes such as in corporate securities voting classes. More than anything, the institution of some type of merit-based distribution of the franchise most appeals to my personal desire to see political and civic self-learning incentivized absent exploitation.

 

[xcvbn]

Seems like educating the population is a more realistic goal.

That would require actually paying teachers a respectable salary to entice more quality talent.