Democracy or Epistocracy?

[Dark_Jester]

After all the debate in the UK over the past month over this general election, and over a long period over such matters as Europe and the European Constitution, as well as some misunderstanding of the inner workings of the English court system in some high profile cases, I have decided to launch my own debate based on my conclusions.

Do you think that society would better function with our current system of democracy, or with epistocracy. Epistocracy is the basic notion of 'rule by the wise', in that those who are the most informed in matters have a greater force of vote. Putting it into extremely basic format, someone on the street who has no real interest in the subject, whether election, referendum etc has a vote of 1, whereas someone who regularly follows the system, and betters his own knowledge of the subject matter involved has a vote of 2. This would have two positive effects I can think of: 1) the end result is a more accurate representation of what the informed rather than reactionary voter will have wanted, and 2) it also betters people's understanding of how the political machine(s) work, possibly leading to a greater sense of accountability for those in power; if those who are in power realise that the majority of votes come from people with a good knowledge of what can and cannot be done in the political or legal spectrum, then they may either refrain from such breaches or be able to be brought to justice for them once they become apparent.

So, any other views? I'd like to develop this idea further. :Spin:

 

[MagSec4]

Definitely the second. Democracy is one of those ideas that sound good in principle, but I have little respect for its actual practice.
In my opinion, a given state of people would be better off if ruled less by meaningless individual votes of the respectable and the idiot alike, and more by a wiser more centralized body.

 

[solefald]

epistocracy sounds good but it isnt as good.just some kind of tyranny of few

in a democracy everyone is equal and that means the same right to vote and the same weight for each vote. even if most people arent interested in politics and what happends around their house, everybody should be treated the same.
and I dont like the idea that someone just because he was on university or did some good things should have more power to vote than me. and who will decide which of the voters have more or less votes?
everybady is free, equal and can do with his vote what he wants to do
democracy often not works very well but there is no better alternative IMO

 

[Taliesin]

The Epistocraca sounds good in theory and I really hear you on the issue, too. Without wanting to sound elitistic, some people just arent up to the responsibility of the weight of their vote. Ive thought many times that people who dont know what they're actually doing shouldnt have the right to vote either, but there is no legal ground to base it on. I mean, where would you draw the line between one votes and two? Mandatory monthly exams, and whoever gets more than 1200 points a year gets 2 votes ?
I like the idea but I dont think it'll ever come true

 

[MagSec4]

epistocracy sounds good but it isnt as good.just some kind of tyranny of few

See, this is one thing that everyone always assumes when attacking anything that isn't democracy: That rule by a few is always necessarily tyrannical.
It is true that this has happened often in history, and it is true that power has a tendency to corrupt; and I surely don't advocate that at all. But I do stand by the idea that a more centralized government would be better than democracy, if exercised properly.

 

[Dark_Jester]

The Epistocraca sounds good in theory and I really hear you on the issue, too. Without wanting to sound elitistic, some people just arent up to the responsibility of the weight of their vote. Ive thought many times that people who dont know what they're actually doing shouldnt have the right to vote either, but there is no legal ground to base it on. I mean, where would you draw the line between one votes and two? Mandatory monthly exams, and whoever gets more than 1200 points a year gets 2 votes ?
I like the idea but I dont think it'll ever come true

Well, the way I was thinking of doing it was that maybe a week or so before the voting took place, registered voters would go to their local voting office, and complete a form or answer questions in an interview, or phonecalls would be made to the voters, and when the answers are received, the person either receives a normal voting card, or one that is given 'higher standing', in that it's worth more votes than the standard cards. Maybe it could be bright red with gold on it, like a VIP pass or something (kidding, kidding ). Those voters who didn't go to the office or take the phonecall would be given the standard voting card. I also like the idea, but I also never think it would happen. Depressingly, they'd probably insist on their being a democratic vote on whether to adopt it or not.

Solefald: But in this system, it wouldn't be so much based on whether someone has a higher degree of education, but whether they understand the issues involved, and can reasonably give their support to them. It also wouldn't be a case of those that can't demonstrate it not being allowed to vote, but more a case of some votes weighing more than others.

 

[Northern Lights]

As the esteemed thread-starter already knows, I would definitely say that the epistocracy is the better choice. Except, being the extremist I am, I'd say that those who have no knowledge at all would consequently not get to vote at all. This could easily be rectified by acquiring knowledge, but knowing the human race it would probably only result in demonstations and riots because "omg, like, forcing us to know something about what we vote about is like, soooooooo repressing my human rights, man!!!11!!". Ultimately, morons are predominant in this world, and morons like setting things on fire better than reading a page or two about the current issue for a referendum.

What comes to mind is the demand for a referendum for the EU constitution here in Sweden. People in general want to vote, and they want to vote "no", despite the fact that a lot of them have no idea what they're voting for or against. Very few people have read the entire constitution, some have read a few selected and biased (both pro and anti) excerpts; and on the whole, very few have a clear picture of what's really going on. What permeates the debate is the "anti-EU" spirit. People don't want the constitution because they want to leave the EU. Then again, with politicians who envourage this line of thinking, like the leftists, I suppose some politicians shouldn't be allowed to vote or voice an opinion either... Like this leftist who was elected into the EU parliament and when asked what the most important issue that he was going to promote in the parliament was, he answered "to get Sweden out of the EU". Completely ignoring the fact that he couldn't possibly do that in parliament; that's for the government and "big guys" to decide. Coinsequently, he will spend his time whining, or not partidipating at all as a form of protest, I imagine. He certainly won't be promoting anything improtant. But people seem to think "oh yeah, this guy is going to get us out, let's elect him" because they don't KNOW that he can't.
They just have no idea.

I'm all for a forced schooling of people, an information campaign, and it must be unbiased. But it is to inform people of what decisions can be made politically, what the consequences will be, and how it will affect their everyday lives. I agree with DJ (I know there are more replies on here by now but I've been slow with typing this one up) that more informed voters would make politicians work harder; the unenlightened masses who were so easy to fool before would suddenly become enlightened.

 

[solefald]

See, this is one thing that everyone always assumes when attacking anything that isn't democracy: That rule by a few is always necessarily tyrannical.
It is true that this has happened often in history, and it is true that power has a tendency to corrupt; and I surely don't advocate that at all. But I do stand by the idea that a more centralized government would be better than democracy, if exercised properly.

yes thats not wrong what you say, but man is just bad nasty evil we are to stupid make a better world, so I cannot trust in those who pretend to make a better world for me, you know its just some kind of selfrighteousness and this cannot work IMO or not for too long

 

[Schwedentod]

How about a democracy with the ability of public votes (like - as NL already said - the EU-referendum in Sweden)? It works well in Switzerland. There's only one thing that should be guaranteed: that the voters of such a public referendum know what they are judging about. This could be realized with TV-commercials, letters, phone calls and so on. But this information mustn't be one-sided to get the voter on one side. (bad expression, I hope you know what I mean...)

On another thing: what do you think of a "fair dictator"? I think of someone who hasn't a sorrow to get re-elected and has to act - before elections - only to get his/ her votes. Someone who REALLY wants the best for the public, without repressions/ executions and so on.

 

[YaYo]

Epistocracy simply sounds flawed, who would decide who else knew what was going on? A test on facts? IQ test?

What about people who maybe dont do so well with the pressure of exams? what about if your wife left you the day before a test for an election? What of all the many different ways in which people are intelligent, going to test them all fairly? Going to test about every issue, not just the big ones?

A test comes with the answers already known, with a scale of marks already definied. If the people writing the test have a bias towards one side (inevitable) then the questions could be naturally slightly biased towards knowledge of one side of an issue rather than the other. This could be the difference in many people getting two votes or not, and because of this possibility it would be hugely open to corruption and this test would sometimes become the deciding factor. Is there a fair and accurate way to test people?

Ask yourself this, if this system was implemented and each of you only were allowed 1 vote every time, would you be happy? For some people as confident in your political views as you are it would happen.

And lastly. This format would take away power from particular segments of society, possibly parts of society who dont do well on such things because they are in need of assistance, yet now they have even less power to change things.

It seems to be opening the door for people to feel more unfairly treated

 

[Northern Lights]

How about a democracy with the ability of public votes (like - as NL already said - the EU-referendum in Sweden)? It works well in Switzerland. There's only one thing that should be guaranteed: that the voters of such a public referendum know what they are judging about. This could be realized with TV-commercials, letters, phone calls and so on. But this information mustn't be one-sided to get the voter on one side. (bad expression, I hope you know what I mean...)

On another thing: what do you think of a "fair dictator"? I think of someone who hasn't a sorrow to get re-elected and has to act - before elections - only to get his/ her votes. Someone who REALLY wants the best for the public, without repressions/ executions and so on.

Just to clarify one thought I think I didn't finish; I don't think there should be a referndum on the EU constitution in Sweden, and so far the politicians have said ther isn't going to be one - the reason I agree with them is because I feel people have no idea what they're voting for, so they'll just vote no to be "anti". Now, if they were informed and enlightened, it would be a different matter. Also, I feel that since the constitution really doesn't affect the individual's life all that much, there shouldn't really be a need for a referndum.

But as for your point of a benevolent dictator, I'm all for it Here I like to refer to Plato, who I think had very sound ideas on politicians. For example, being a leader of a country should mean you get no extra benefits. No high salary, no luxurious mansion. You are fed and clothed by the people, who make sure you stay alive, but you live simply. You rule only for the sake of improving your country, not for getting yourself material possessions and power. There's also to be no "power marriages" and Uday Husseins so there can be no nepotism. Now I confess I don't remember all the guidelines as clearly as I did a year ago, but I should still have some of my philosophy books so I shall look it up...

 

[DGR XVI]

I know Aristotle shared the same opinion too, he told that a "fair dictator" is the best government but on the other hand an "unfair dictator" is the worse. I quite agree with them too - although I'm a bit afraid that no "fair dictator" would ever be found...
Democracy is a flawed system... epistocracy sounds way better, but impossible to build up IMHO... and as long as power will remain the only goal of some men, no political system could be flawless. Rather stupid, but unfortunately true

 

[solefald]

On another thing: what do you think of a "fair dictator"? I think of someone who hasn't a sorrow to get re-elected and has to act - before elections - only to get his/ her votes. Someone who REALLY wants the best for the public, without repressions/ executions and so on.

fair dictator yeah
he has my vote:

 

[Schwedentod]

@NL: Of course, a referendum where people don't know EXACTLY what they decide about, there will always be too many who just vote 'anti' because they don't know better. That's why I mentioned the idea of commercials and so on to show the people what it's all about. As I said, it seems to work in Switzerland. Anyone here from this country who could give us a little report? I think that (valuation-free) information would be the main problem, st least in a big state. But what about local referendums (should we get a new town-hall etc.)? I would definitely support this!

On another note: I don't know Plato's work - I'm not into philosophy - it's just an idea I was thinking about for quite some time. But I like the thought of the best government (fair dictator) and worse (unfair dict.).

 

[DGR XVI]

Actually (if I remember well, cause I read that some time ago...) Aristotle's thought about governement is that for each form of government it exists a similar but "degenerated" form of government. "fair dictatorship" is the best government (according to him, but also IMHO), and its degenerated form "unfair dictatorship" is the worse (IMHO too). "republic" is the worse "non-degenerated" government, and its degenerated form (democracy) is then the best of the degenerated governments... but as I don't remember the details I may be a bit confusing

 

[marduk1507]

Hmmm, really interesting reading! The idea that DJ came up with has its pros and cons as everything. On one hand, the number of votes for those who "care" should be more than 2, maybe 5, because the number of morons is much larger than the number of us, the intelligent. The politicians would really have to do their best to be elected by the priviliged and thats good. BUT, on the other hand, and I agree with solefald here, when I imagine this theory in practice, it frightens me. I think there is absolutely no guarantee that this system would work and that it would be better than democracy. I can see too many terrible ways it could go.

I am quite sensitive about this, because not so long ago we had the tyranny of the red aristocracy in our country. From 1948 to 1989. Yeah, they all wanted to be really equal, but some, of course, were more equal than others - and in the 50s it cost lives. It couldve been different, had the 1968 gone well, but with the help of our russian, hungarian, polish and other friends, we managed to be equal for another 20 years.

So, I think democracy isnt perfect (nothing is), but all elitist regimes and systems have been proven WRONG for too many times. Power corrupts and all people have deep secret dungeons within themselves, filled with lunatic prisoners, they arent even aware of. And I want as many dungeons remain supressed as possible. Its all about education and upbringing and the politicians know that - education and family support are at the very end when new budgets are passed. So yeah, I am for education, even for a really strict educational system, but Im against any kind of elitism and saloon theorising.

 

[Malaclypse]

i just wrote something about that and deleted it right away. basically i think democracy is a good idea, because if the majority are morons, they should be ruled by morons.

 

[Taliesin]

Peculiar to hear such desperate words from you with such a revolutionary and motivating signature

 

[Malaclypse]

well, you can't always practise what you preach and the signature is half a year old, or so...

 

[Taliesin]

I like the new one better anyway Picard an Miria Kron: Sag noch einmal Junge, Junge..!

The funniest thing is that a girl I know was born "Marie Kron", but then her parents got married so her name changed