NationStates

Should dumb people be allowed to vote? That’s the provocative question posed by Jason Brennan, an associate professor of strategy, economics, ethics, and public policy at Georgetown University and the author of the recently released book Against Democracy, in an essay published last week on Aeon and on Quartz. - Jesse Singal, What a Georgetown Professor Got Wrong When He Argued That Maybe Dumb People Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Vote

Brennan, of Bleeding Hearts Libertarians, recently wrote a book advocating epistocracy – the argument that politics ought to be restricted to those who know enough to participate in it. Specifically, he suggests among other possibilities that voting ought to be restricted to those who demonstrate in an exam that they have sufficient knowledge of politics to be allowed participate. - Henry Farrell, Uber Menschen

It's super fascinating to see so much backlash against requiring a license to vote. Part of the fascination stems in no small part from the fact that ignorance is frequently used as an argument against allowing people to choose where their taxes go (pragmatarianism). Somewhat ironically, my counter-argument is rational ignorance.

Bob: people are too ignorant to allocate their taxes
Me: you're ignorant about rational ignorance

If you're not entirely ignorant about economics then you know that our society is based on a division of labor. Specialization increases productivity. But a division of labor is the same thing as a division of knowledge. However, a division of knowledge really isn't an argument against choice. You'll have to search pretty long and hard in order to find an economist who will argue that doctors shouldn't be allowed to choose which accountants, plumbers, mechanics, lawyers, contractors and gardeners they allocate their money to.

What would happen if we did prevent doctors from choosing who they allocated their money to? We can logically guess that it would no longer be worthwhile for doctors to engage in due diligence. There'd be no point in the doctors spending their time and energy shopping around.

The idea of a division of labor/knowledge means that it's rational that we aren't experts in everything. But the idea of rational ignorance means that choice is correlated with a certain amount of knowledge outside our area of expertise. This "extra" knowledge is eliminated when choice is eliminated.

We don't allow kids to vote. Therefore... what? Therefore we can reasonably guess that kids are more knowledge about things they can choose (musicians) than things they can't choose (representatives). We don't allow kids to allocate their taxes. Therefore... what? Therefore, we can reasonably guess that kids are more knowledge about things they can choose (video games) than things they can't choose (environmental protection).

Should we be worried about kids spending their taxes on the wrong things? Well yeah. In all cases we should be worried about money being spent on the wrong things. But... relatively speaking... it's not like kids would have very many taxes to spend. Same thing with idiots.

In my opinion... Jason Brennan is right to be worried about idiots... but he doesn't quite understand the relationship between choice and knowledge. He doesn't understand that more choice means more knowledge. As a result, he's trying to solve a really big problem by going in the really wrong direction. Right diagnosis, wrong remedy (rothberror).

What's your opinion?

Xerographica wrote:What would happen if we did prevent doctors from choosing who they allocated their money to? We can logically guess that it would no longer be worthwhile for doctors to engage in due diligence. There'd be no point in the doctors spending their time and energy shopping around.

Given one doctor's taxes being so small as to be basically irrelevant to the overall federal budget, there is still no point in the doctor spending time and energy shopping around about things that don't directly benefit him because they go into some big pool.

The central problem. Again. Even in your system, it's still rational to be ignorant about the structure and funding of federal agencies.


Regarding poll tests - we tried those. They were used to discriminate based on race instead of intelligence. These days, they would probably be used to discriminate based on class instead of intelligence, or political orientation instead of intelligence. It's just safer to let the idiots vote than to let people choose who gets to vote, because they discriminate on the basis of other things not related to intelligence instead of intelligence.

ive met too many stupid smart people to worry that stupid people ought not vote.

Limiting voting rights for any reason seems like it would be harmful to democracy, rather than strengthen it.

Idiots can, of course, equal a race or members of an ideology. Only use would be to keep a party in power.

Hi, precious.

I vote we put a monthly thread posting cap for the OP. Who's with me?

Giving power to the people has already gone too far. Democracy is the means to its own destruction, it is unsustainable, it is fundamentally disastrous in its inherent effect of polarizing populations.

Best solution to dumb people voting, without any intelligence tests, licenses to vote, and other discriminatory practices:

Get rid of dumb people. Y'know, by fixing and improving the education system so that everybody has a well-rounded education and is taught critical thinking skills. The fewer dumb people there are, the fewer dumb people will be voting. Problem solved!

Incidentally, regarding the poll, how old of kids are we talking about?

Because I've often thought that we should probably lower the voting age to 16. It seems ridiculous that they're responsible enough to drive a 4,000 pound vehicle at over 100 feet per second, but not responsible enough to choose who they like for president.

Now, regarding a 3 year old, that's basically just a proxy vote for the parent, so I wouldn't allow that.

Instead of denying a large group of people their rights, economics and money management should be required courses in high school.

The Liberated Territories wrote:Instead of denying a large group of people their rights, economics and money management should be required courses in high school.

Economics is usually taught in school, but it's typically an elective. There's an argument for making it mandatory.

Money management definitely needs to be taught (in our school, they call that JAG, but it also involves things like how to get and keep a job, etc).

I would like to take a moment to point out how terrible this poll is. It looks like only 23% of people support the rights of dumb people to vote, but it is calculating it as a percentage of all responses. There are barely 12 posts in this thread and some of them are the same people!

Obviously, anybody who was "dumb" enough to design that poll shouldn't be allowed to vote. /s

Only idiots think idiots shouldn't be allowed to vote.

There's too many factors that go into making an idiot an idiot, and well, it's just not worth the arbitrary lines that it would necessitate.

Not just the dumb people - I'd rather see democracy abolished entirely.

A country should be run by people who actually know what they are doing, and have a vested interest in keeping things stable and prosperous rather than just enriching themselves and their election sponsors for the duration of their term, come hell or high water afterwards. These people should absolutely not be selected in a popularity contest by appealing to the basest wants of a dumbed-down rabble that an election these days typically is, but by their actual competence and qualification to perform the functions of the office they are to assume. Modern democracy contradicts the principles of meritocracy, since it is rarely if ever the most competent, qualified, honest and patriotic citizens who are elected to office (and that's assuming the election system even works as advertised, i.e. isn't rigged). Most of the time, it's the most smooth-tongued and audacious liars with the most influential sponsors who care little for the fate of the nation, seeing it as merely another resource pool at which to enrich themselves and their supporters. The average voter these days (and by "average" I mean 85 or more percent) is so lazy, dumbed-down and politically illiterate that such people should be driven away from the election booths with a shitty stick by anyone who cares about the future of his nation.

A democracy can work properly in a nation where all or at least most of the eligible citizens actively take interest in politics and consider it their most sacred duty to work together in governing their state. Which is in stark contrast to modern "democracies" where the only vestige of actual democracy is a symbolic election once every four years to legitimize the authority of the corrupt oligarchs and their cronies in power, where voting is the only political activity expected or desired from the dumbed-down and apathetic common rabble, and where most people cannot be bothered to exercise even this nominal political activity because of it's evident futility.

Which is why the so-called democracy of today needs to go. The whole political system in the West is rotten to the core and needs to be redesigned from ground up if our civilization and it's many nations are to have a future.

Imperium Sidhicum wrote:Not just the dumb people - I'd rather see democracy abolished entirely.

A country should be run by people who actually know what they are doing, and have a vested interest in keeping things stable and prosperous rather than just enriching themselves and their election sponsors for the duration of their term, come hell or high water afterwards. These people should absolutely not be selected in a popularity contest by appealing to the basest wants of a dumbed-down rabble that an election these days typically is, but by their actual competence and qualification to perform the functions of the office they are to assume. Modern democracy contradicts the principles of meritocracy, since it is rarely if ever the most competent, qualified, honest and patriotic citizens who are elected to office (and that's assuming the election system even works as advertised, i.e. isn't rigged). Most of the time, it's the most smooth-tongued and audacious liars with the most influential sponsors who care little for the fate of the nation, seeing it as merely another resource pool at which to enrich themselves and their supporters. The average voter these days (and by "average" I mean 85 or more percent) is so lazy, dumbed-down and politically illiterate that such people should be driven away from the election booths with a shitty stick by anyone who cares about the future of his nation.

A democracy can work properly in a nation where all or at least most of the eligible citizens actively take interest in politics and consider it their most sacred duty to work together in governing their state. Which is in stark contrast to modern "democracies" where the only vestige of actual democracy is a symbolic election once every four years to legitimize the authority of the corrupt oligarchs and their cronies in power, where voting is the only political activity expected or desired from the dumbed-down and apathetic common rabble, and where most people cannot be bothered to exercise even this nominal political activity because of it's evident futility.

Which is why the so-called democracy of today needs to go. The whole political system in the West is rotten to the core and needs to be redesigned from ground up if our civilization and it's many nations are to have a future.

I mentioned before that, if you want to make me King, I do have previous experience.

Imperium Sidhicum wrote:Not just the dumb people - I'd rather see democracy abolished entirely.

A country should be run by people who actually know what they are doing, and have a vested interest in keeping things stable and prosperous rather than just enriching themselves and their election sponsors for the duration of their term, come hell or high water afterwards. These people should absolutely not be selected in a popularity contest by appealing to the basest wants of a dumbed-down rabble that an election these days typically is, but by their actual competence and qualification to perform the functions of the office they are to assume. Modern democracy contradicts the principles of meritocracy, since it is rarely if ever the most competent, qualified, honest and patriotic citizens who are elected to office (and that's assuming the election system even works as advertised, i.e. isn't rigged). Most of the time, it's the most smooth-tongued and audacious liars with the most influential sponsors who care little for the fate of the nation, seeing it as merely another resource pool at which to enrich themselves and their supporters. The average voter these days (and by "average" I mean 85 or more percent) is so lazy, dumbed-down and politically illiterate that such people should be driven away from the election booths with a shitty stick by anyone who cares about the future of his nation.

A democracy can work properly in a nation where all or at least most of the eligible citizens actively take interest in politics and consider it their most sacred duty to work together in governing their state. Which is in stark contrast to modern "democracies" where the only vestige of actual democracy is a symbolic election once every four years to legitimize the authority of the corrupt oligarchs and their cronies in power, where voting is the only political activity expected or desired from the dumbed-down and apathetic common rabble, and where most people cannot be bothered to exercise even this nominal political activity because of it's evident futility.

Which is why the so-called democracy of today needs to go. The whole political system in the West is rotten to the core and needs to be redesigned from ground up if our civilization and it's many nations are to have a future.

Man, dictators/kings love their people so much. Remember the good old days of despotism, where corrupt kings ruled corrupt dukes ruling corrupt counts which enforced practical slavery on it's subjects?

Those were the days.

I shouldn't be allowed to vote no.

No.

Democracy, however perverse it may have become in recent years, is still the best system we have.

To deny a considerable swath of the population from making decisions is absurd. Their vote is just as valid as the circle-jerkers at Mensa or the smart people that actually matter.

Every citizen over 18 should be allowed to vote, even if they are stupid or make stupid choices. It's part of being an American.

Who defines "dumb" or "idiot"?

Because if you use intelligence to restrict voting rights, congratulations- you've just handed that person/organization the keys to your government.

I would say if someone is capable of understanding what a vote is, and casting one, and if they are legally an adult, they should have every right to vote.

I'd even be open to allowing minors to vote as well, perhaps, if not for the risk of their parents unduly influencing their vote.

Although...

You could make an argument that children, being citizens, have the right to representation in government, and that like many other choices that have to be made involving children, because they are too young to make that choice, their parents should make it on their behalf.

In which case, the parents would vote as their child's proxy/legal representative until they were old enough to do so.

But their are all sorts of problems with that.

Probably best to just leave things as they are.

There are no objective measures of intelligence, so obviously this would just be used a method of discriminating against people the test-giver doesn't like. Such as how it happened in the past.

Frankly no one should vote since when does a dying species have time to worry about such petty things as voting?

Galloism wrote:Incidentally, regarding the poll, how old of kids are we talking about?

Because I've often thought that we should probably lower the voting age to 16. It seems ridiculous that they're responsible enough to drive a 4,000 pound vehicle at over 100 feet per second, but not responsible enough to choose who they like for president.

Now, regarding a 3 year old, that's basically just a proxy vote for the parent, so I wouldn't allow that.

I would concur. If you can drive, you should be old enough to vote!

Imperium Sidhicum wrote:Not just the dumb people - I'd rather see democracy abolished entirely.

A country should be run by people who actually know what they are doing, and have a vested interest in keeping things stable and prosperous rather than just enriching themselves and their election sponsors for the duration of their term, come hell or high water afterwards.

Both my best friend and I agree that benevolent authoritarianism is the best form of government. Problem with that is, like libertarians who think privatisation of everything is best, is that it is idealism and not based in reality. You may get one benevolent ruler but when they die there is no garuntee that their replacement will be benevolent.
The problem with modern democracy isn't that the most qualified don't get elected, it is that the most qulaified don't bother trying. And this is also a problem with your idea because you can't force the best to do a job they don't want.