This is definitely true. Representative Democracy systems (and bodies like the Electoral College in the US) try to ameliorate the stupidity of the average voter, but ultimately add complexity and beauracracy to a simple idea (democracy).
Let's say I spend a lot of time prior to an election trying to understand the ballot measures and issues and candidates. Come going day, my decision is weighed just as highly as someone who watched Fox News the morning of the election, heard one of the candidates was the next Hitler and made an uninformed, fear-based decision. Ours votes are worth the same; why should I even do research then? (That's a different rant though).
I'm unfairly picking on Fox News. The vast majority of "news" is bullshit that is a distraction from the issues that an intelligent, informed electorate should care about. By turning news into entertainment, the purpose is no longer to inform and thus little of any substance is discussed by most news outlets.
So why not have a meritocracy, where only those deemed informed/an expert/smart enough get a vote? Or what if it was not one person = one vote, but rather a system where people's relative intelligences are reflected in their say in the process.
Perhaps finishing HS could earn people a second vote. Finish college, you get a third vote. If you serve in the military, you get an extra vote. Experts in a particular field could get extra votes, etc.
This seems like the rational successor to democracy. Of course this system I'm describing would need to be carefully crafted to remain fair, but I believe we can't do much worse at picking leaders and making policy decisions than we currently do in the US.
So why not have a meritocracy, where only those deemed informed/an expert/smart enough get a vote?
Multiple reasons:
1. Because our ability to measure g (the general intelligence factor some psychologists think exists and others do not) is somewhere between marginal and nonexistent. Our attempts are better than they were but I don't know of anyone informed on the topic who would claim with a straight face that they're actually good.
2. Because intelligent people can be very, very wrong, and not just that, but wrong in more exciting ways than the average person. Libertarians tend to be intelligent, educated, and wrong about so many things it's barely worth debating them on politics or economics; doctrinaire Marxist Socialists are essentially the same way.
3. Because we're not starting from scratch, here; we're starting this system in an established political and social order, where opportunities for people to game this system as it's being born will be everywhere. If ensuring that my children have a berth on the deluxe class means redefining 'intelligence' to include them, I'll do it without looking back. Most people involved in politics now are like that, if not moreso.
Perhaps finishing HS could earn people a second vote. Finish college, you get a third vote. If you serve in the military, you get an extra vote. Experts in a particular field could get extra votes, etc.
This is so biased towards a certain subculture I don't know where to begin. It's almost tailor-written to cater to middle-class and rich people, predominantly White and Asian, especially those who are not gay or transgender or otherwise going to be effectively locked out of certain preferred careers or lifestyles, such as the military or top-flight schools. It is, in short, precisely what you would implement to turn America into Brazil or the Soviet Union or China, where there is no vertical mobility and birth absolutely determines outcome.
we can't do much worse at picking leaders and making policy decisions than we currently do in the US
I bring Russia, China, and most of Africa to your attention.
Let's say I spend a lot of time prior to an election trying to understand the ballot measures and issues and candidates. Come going day, my decision is weighed just as highly as someone who watched Fox News the morning of the election, heard one of the candidates was the next Hitler and made an uninformed, fear-based decision. Ours votes are worth the same; why should I even do research then? (That's a different rant though).
I'm unfairly picking on Fox News. The vast majority of "news" is bullshit that is a distraction from the issues that an intelligent, informed electorate should care about. By turning news into entertainment, the purpose is no longer to inform and thus little of any substance is discussed by most news outlets.
So why not have a meritocracy, where only those deemed informed/an expert/smart enough get a vote? Or what if it was not one person = one vote, but rather a system where people's relative intelligences are reflected in their say in the process.
Perhaps finishing HS could earn people a second vote. Finish college, you get a third vote. If you serve in the military, you get an extra vote. Experts in a particular field could get extra votes, etc.
This seems like the rational successor to democracy. Of course this system I'm describing would need to be carefully crafted to remain fair, but I believe we can't do much worse at picking leaders and making policy decisions than we currently do in the US.