Epistocracy, no thanks.
Aside from the fact that the word should be 'epistemocracy', it's such a dumb idea that the people who promote it should have their voting rights removed from them by arbitrary tyrannical decision in the first instance and then by force of argument and rational debate if ultimately necessary. I refer to Estlund and Brennan. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/07/the-case-against-democracy .
The idea is that, so many voters being relatively stupid, the better educated voters should get more votes. Then we would have a rationally run society. They deal with counter-arguments but do not present such counter-arguments with any plausible degree of force.
I can think of three. Two have echoes in the counter-arguments they anticipate, but are rather stronger. The third is as far as I know my own.
The first is that more knowledge does not make you wiser. I might have a doctorate in political philosophy and be able to name the president of every presidential country in the world. But I might also support vicious and harmful political regimes and have tens of thousands of equally educated people on my side. On the other hand, I might be an uneducated nobody, unable to name my democratic representatives. And I may at the same time have a good sense of my own interests and a virtuous care for my community's welfare. On the epistocratic view, the votes should go to the vicious academic and be withheld from the kindly everyman.
The second argument is that giving groups of people lesser voting rights is a provocative political act likely to lead to the kind of violence I hint at in the first para above. If we limit people's access to peaceful democratic decision-making then they will be liable to resort to unpeaceful and undemocratic means of redress. From the serfs of Russia to the suffragettes we can see this process. Shut me up, I will kick. And I will be justified in doing so because I have been given lesser rights to object by more peaceful means.
The third argument is technical. Let's suppose the first two objections can be overcome. Suppose we can find a way of determining which voters are wiser than others. And suppose we can convince the millions of fools to accept that they are really quite foolish and should have lesser voting rights than the rest of us. That leaves us with the problem of how to distribute the voting powers. If I am 5% wiser than you but 20% less wise than someone else, I suppose we should distribute the votes proportionally. But it is not at all plausible that we could devise, let alone agree upon, a scheme that would be valid.
If anyone is up for arguing the case for epistocracy then please go ahead. I shall, however, only read the first twenty-five words of any post that looks as if it is about to disagree with my views, because I am better educated, more rational and wiser than all those who hold opinions that are different from my own. With that gentle warning, let debate commence. Thank you.
The idea is that, so many voters being relatively stupid, the better educated voters should get more votes. Then we would have a rationally run society. They deal with counter-arguments but do not present such counter-arguments with any plausible degree of force.
I can think of three. Two have echoes in the counter-arguments they anticipate, but are rather stronger. The third is as far as I know my own.
The first is that more knowledge does not make you wiser. I might have a doctorate in political philosophy and be able to name the president of every presidential country in the world. But I might also support vicious and harmful political regimes and have tens of thousands of equally educated people on my side. On the other hand, I might be an uneducated nobody, unable to name my democratic representatives. And I may at the same time have a good sense of my own interests and a virtuous care for my community's welfare. On the epistocratic view, the votes should go to the vicious academic and be withheld from the kindly everyman.
The second argument is that giving groups of people lesser voting rights is a provocative political act likely to lead to the kind of violence I hint at in the first para above. If we limit people's access to peaceful democratic decision-making then they will be liable to resort to unpeaceful and undemocratic means of redress. From the serfs of Russia to the suffragettes we can see this process. Shut me up, I will kick. And I will be justified in doing so because I have been given lesser rights to object by more peaceful means.
The third argument is technical. Let's suppose the first two objections can be overcome. Suppose we can find a way of determining which voters are wiser than others. And suppose we can convince the millions of fools to accept that they are really quite foolish and should have lesser voting rights than the rest of us. That leaves us with the problem of how to distribute the voting powers. If I am 5% wiser than you but 20% less wise than someone else, I suppose we should distribute the votes proportionally. But it is not at all plausible that we could devise, let alone agree upon, a scheme that would be valid.
If anyone is up for arguing the case for epistocracy then please go ahead. I shall, however, only read the first twenty-five words of any post that looks as if it is about to disagree with my views, because I am better educated, more rational and wiser than all those who hold opinions that are different from my own. With that gentle warning, let debate commence. Thank you.
Comments (48)
Yes, but what if it we're given to the intellectuals who percieve the rampant exploitation of belief of the masses ongoing already? Would there be no moral justification then?
The United States initially restricted voting to the 6% of the population who were white property-owning males. It took a long time for non-property-owning white males, black males, and women to gain voting rights. Did the 6% manage things all that well?
Who, better than the masses, knows what the masses need and want?
Intellectuals--or the most highly trained and or educated people--do not necessarily know what is good for themselves, let alone everyone else. Determining the best practice, best policy, best law, best tax system, best regulation, etc. is just plain difficult and freighted with all sorts of competing interests, even among a limited elite. Taking everyone's interests into account is that much more complex.
Working out what is good for the people is the peoples' business, and it tends to be a messy process (because of competing interests), and perhaps it is the messiness of politics to which the epistocracists object.
They can, do, and did. Elected governments led to the second American revolution of southern succession, for instance. Elected governments also crushed that revolution.
"Corruption" is a problematic term. In the US, insider trading is considered corrupt. In some other leading industrial nations it is not. Corruption, meaning official-rule violating, may be the most effective way to achieve good results. If environmentalists had enough money, we could bribe congress to pass laws favorable to the environment and in accord with stringent carbon emissions reduction. That would save many people from dying.
Well, this is just Plato 101; but, you would know that Plato held the ignorant and uneducated in contempt. At least at the time, many ignorant and uneducated people we're in government in his view. Nowadays, we seem to have adopted Plato's attitude towards all matters regarding statecraft. Yeah, sometimes we get the demagogues and populists in power; but, on average it seems like branches of government weed out the incorrigible and uneducated.
I was in Walgreens to get some first aid supplies for our first aid kit. A Walgreens clerk happened to be restocking that area. I asked him where the bandage was. "What is that?" he said. I said, "You're working in a drug store restocking the first aid shelves and you don't know what bandage is?" "No" he said. "How did you get this far in life without ever hearing the word "bandage". "What does it look like?" he asked. "It's gauze -- have you heard of gauze?" "Oh sure, it's right over there."
As it happened, next to the bandage.
I AGREE with what you said, but what was undemocratic and unpeaceful about the way the suffragettes sought the vote? The temperance movement involved more destruction (taking axes to saloons) and social disruption.
Regarding argument two: in order to revolt, the people would have to have a certain amount of political knowledge. Would it be enough that we consider them eligible to vote anyway and thus making the revolt moot?
Another argument against an epistemocracy is an ethical one concerning the rights of autonomous adults. Any adult has the right to be as stupid as he or she wishes to be and to make as many poor choices as he or she wants--provided, of course, these choices do not harm others. So, do we allow stupid people to vote because they should be allowed to ruin their own lives? Or do we say that their stupid voting choices are negatively affecting others and as such should be more controlled?
The solution, of course, is fairly simple: a democracy that ensures the education of all of it's people and that values learning/knowledge more than, say, the Super Bowl. Easier said than done perhaps, but also the only truly ethical way out of the mess.
The only contestion I have with Plato's sentiment being swept around here is the authoritarian tone it gave governments to meddle and get involved in their lives. We've seen how that ended with totalitarian Germany and Soviet Russia. But, then there's China that has to leave someone scratching their head. Is it possible for an elite to be able to manage (in this case central management) the welfare of a billion plus people? It would surprisingly seem so, and lends to the stronger readings of Plato's Republic. It's also the most efficient form of governance possible, in that Platonic perfectionist sense.
I'm not arguing that we should tolerate ill-informed people in executive branches of government. Only that the ill-informed should have the same rights to vote.
The difficulty of distinguishing truth from lies is an old one as you say. But even when you can distinguish them it will only get you part of the way to sound judgement. I can get my PhD in international politics and still believe that capitalism is a great system for benefiting everyone (lie or truth?) or that socialism is a great way of freeing the oppressed from their shackles (truth or lie?). Knowledge will not help me all the way in these matters.
To test this hypothesis - "Higher levels of wisdom amongst educated than uneducated" - you would have to know (a) levels of education and (b) levels of wisdom. Measuring (a) is easy. But how do you measure (b)? Let's suppose that a person who votes Democrat is stupider than a person who votes Republican just because (as anyone but a fool can judge) the Republicans are wiser and better than the Democrats. Or it may be the other way round. I'm saying that your claim begs the question. If we already knew what was wisest and best then we wouldn't need votes for anyone at all because we would all agree.
"In most cases knowledge will also make the innately wise person even wiser. A group of more educated people may not be 100% free of people voting for the wrong things and for the wrong reasons, but it significantly reduces the total number thereof."
Education is a great thing. I'm arguing against degrading the civil rights of those who don't have it. I think your point is a good argument for giving everyone at least a basic level of education.
I've raised this issue elsewhere recently, so I'm not sure if you will have encountered them, apologies for the repeat if you have, but surely we already have an epistocracy? Why else are children not allowed to vote? If anything @tim wood's idea is more fair, as a particularly well informed and educated 14 year old could vote, whereas at the moment we have a system where it is simply presumed that they're too stupid to make a rational choice. The result is we have a democracy obsessed with house prices and tax at the expense of securing our children a future.
As to the civil rights of the individual without education: I agree that this is the main problem with the whole concept of keeping democracy in the hands of those who are educated. However, I do not think the ethical dilemma can be dismissed so easily out of hand. If the majority of uneducated people are voting in favor of racists and those who would intentionally harm certain populations, then their individual rights may be at odds with the rights of others.
The only thing my position presupposes to work well is an education that emphasizes critical thinking over indoctrination. But I would argue that even the most indoctrinating education is better than none, because it is always giving you more tools with which you might be able to see through the propaganda. You can see China struggling with this tension throughout it's regime's history and today--they want to have educated people, and to have a boast-worthy system of higher education, but it's hard to maintain their rigid system of propaganda at the same time.
That's an argument for taking the vote away from racists - not from people who happen to belong to a group the majority of whom are (let's grant for sake of argument) racists. There is a big difference. Suppose I'm uneducated and as well as being uneducated I go on anti-racist marches and throw myself in front of racist demonstrators who are attacking black people. Suppose I am an uneducated black person doing those things. And you'd take away my vote because there are other, equally uneducated people, who are racist and attacking me? Does not seem just to me.
That leaves aside whether we should take the vote away from racists. I'm rather against it, as it happens because of the implications of how such a policy would be implemented. To get your vote you have to take an anti-racist test. What's in the test? People would disagree about what was racist and what was not, what was just and what was not. And to settle the matter we'd have to have a vote on it. Back to where we started. Very tricky.
Well I'd be interested to hear if you come up with anything. Personally I think it's a crime at the heart of democracy and goes straight to the hypocrisy of such systems. Either there's some criteria for who can vote (in which case we might as well be proactive about it, rather than arbitrary), or everyone with an interest has that right (in which case we can't go excluding whole swathes of the population on the grounds that they'd probably vote for the 'wrong' reasons).
A threshold of understanding seems to be the only justifiable line, and in that case (and that case alone) I can see some argument for an age limit as a purely pragmatic way of indicating the passing of that threshold. But in order for such a threshold to have a claim to moral authority, it would have to be set such that only a few very rare exceptions existed. As it is, I can think of whole swathes of the adult population who have less understanding of the political issues than equally large swathes of the 14 year old population.
Consequently I'm in favour of reducing the voting age to at least 14, possibly 12.
Interesting. In addition to extending the "blessings" of (legal) adulthood, would you also expose younger people to the burdens of being an adult at an earlier age?
In the United States, for instance, it falls on adults to provide for the material existence of children until they reach the age of eighteen.
Those younger than eighteen are also typically tried as children for crimes committed, and the punishments meted out take consideration of their age as a mitigating factor.
There are also child labor laws which prevent kids under sixteen (maybe it's fifteen) from working, that limit the number of hours those between the ages of sixteen and eighteen can work per day and per week, etc.
As in the other thread where we talked about raising children, I like where you're going with this, but when I think through some possible consequences I become a little more cautious.
Absolutely agree with you about the main points of contention. Personally I see them as indicators of a systemic failure that they do not seem to be resolvable without arbitrary unfairness (if that's not a tautology).
I don't want to hijack the thread, so I'll answer your points briefly.
With regards to providing the means of existence, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool 'from each according to their ability to each according to their needs' kind of person, so the issue of some age-specific cut off point at which one is/is not responsible for the material needs of others does not arise. Mostly adults have the greater ability, so should do the greater part of provision, but it's ability, not age that's being judged.
I don't believe in punishment for crime. It has been demonstrated, certainly on my reading of the evidence, that punishment does not work to deter crime. The correct response to crime is to do whatever is most effective to prevent it from happening again. If the crime was committed as a result of immaturity, then action should be taken to raise the child's maturity, if committed out of callousness or sociopathy, then therapy treatment might be appropriate. Either way, the age still is not the determining factor.
With regards to labour laws, there should be no job which is so onerous that we would not want a child to do it (presuming they are willing, keen, and capable, as above). I find the idea of making an adult sit at a desk for 35 hours a week (despite the full knowledge that such restrictions on movement are often fatal in the long term) to be quite repulsive enough without even considering inflicting it on a child. We should have extremely robust labour laws which prevent the exploitation of children and adults alike.
Obviously, many of these issues are an all-or-nothing case (as I believe were some of the issues in our other discussion). Removing child labour laws without changing anything else would be a disaster for children, allowing them to be treated as adults in court without changing our punitive system would be cruel. But I do think some changes are possible within the society we have. Allowing children to vote is one such change, allowing them to work in very strictly controlled types of job is another I would be in favour of, for example.
Absolutely. One day (soon I hope) we will look back at the way we treated children with the same baffled abhorrence as we now have for the way we treated other races, women, homosexuals etc. I have no issue with transgender individuals, but it does make me sick to hear all the furore that is being made (quite righly) about their rights to wear whatever they feel comfortable in, and (rather more arguably) have their own pronoun, whilst in the same states we hear of children detained against their will for having the wrong haircut and no-one cares. It's a disgrace.
I share your disgust with the system of values, practices, institutions, etc. underlying our modern Western societies. I also think your position on extending rights to younger people - as with your philosophy of child development - seems much more reasonable when combined with a radical shift in these things from where they're at now.
And you're right to point out that extending those rights to kids without a corresponding shift in the larger social, political and cultural context would be a huge mistake. It's an admirable goal for sure, but one that has to work against deeply ingrained prejudices. I guess that's true of all significant social change.
2. Democracy appears to behave problematically.
3. Epistocracy, a system in there is unequal political power between people based on knowledge, may lead to better outcomes.
4. If epistocracy does lead to better outcomes than democracy, then we ought to favor epistocracy over democracy.
5. We ought to, if we can, experiment or find ways to test epistocracy to see how outcomes go.
That's all the argument really is. A large part of the argument is based on the idea that we tend to idolize democracy. We treat democracy as if it is above reproach. All that is required for epistocracy to gain ground is the idea that political liberties (namely the right to vote) are not basic liberties (freedom of speech, right to life) and that we can justify discriminating against certain people based upon some standard of knowledge.
Brennan has some issues. Some of arguments he makes are weak and need to be fleshed out more, and it feels like he spent a lot of time on one argument and needed to cut out sections of other arguments for editing and page length. He does gloss over some of the issues the author of the article brings up. But the book's thesis seems less about progressing epistocracy directly on consequentialist grounds and more about attacking democracy on non-conseqeuntialist grounds, while also attacking some common arguments put forward for the positive effects of democracy.
The objections raised in the OP are less objections to epistocracy proper without some empirical backing and more considerations that need to be considered.
Yes, some people who are educated are not exactly wise. But it seems odd to argue that somehow that the uneducated are able to properly make decisions (and by uneducated, I refer to general level of intelligence, not by official education). It doesn't matter how good-intentioned you are; if you lack basic knowledge about politics (or anything relevant to the issue at hand), it becomes hard to see how you can put your wisdom to use.
Yes, there is the potential for violence if people take issue with a political inequality. But, that is a potential. There is a possibility for violence because of real political inequality within a democracy. There is potential for violence simply for a major disagreement in a political democracy. What matters is if a non-democratic system can have the same actual results of violence. That said, I do think a variation that this particular question is probably one of the strongest objection to Brennan. One of the potential strong benefits of a democracy is that it handles shifts in power relatively well compared to other systems. Democracies can undergo change much better and will not break down into violent revolution everytime a paradigm shift happens to society. However, I am not sure if and how we could test this, or whether an epistocracy with an emphasis on avoiding discrimination (or a plural voting system in which some people get more votes) would solve this issue.
Lastly, I think the technical and specific aspects and issues on how to frame a form a government is no different than what one might face when trying to do it with an epistocracy or a democracy. So, I don't really see the objection.
"So, I don't really see the objection." - as above.
"We treat democracy as if it is above reproach."
I agree with Churchill that democracy is the worst imaginable system of government aside from every other system that has ever been tried.
We can then go up the age until we get to the teenage years, like 16 and 17 year-olds. I mean, it is odd that someone who is 17 can't vote but is in the same peer group and shares the same general lifestyles of an 18 year-old who can vote. But this seems odd. I mean, we could give them a chance to vote through some type of test, but then why do we allow everyone to vote without the test? We already acknowledge that certain people are not rational or capable, so why do we do things by age?
Better educated doesn't necessarily mean less stupid.
Who gets to vote and how many votes they get would does not need to be tied to education level, but some other metric that anyone could do to show competency. Someone does not automatically get more votes under an epistocracy. I wouldn't do it. I've been to college and seen some of the people who get degrees; I would not automatically assume they should vote just because they have a piece of paper for no-name university somewhere.
I'm attacking Brennan and Estlund who argue for that exact policy. "Brennan suggests that since voters in an epistocracy would be more enlightened about crime and policing, “excluding the bottom 80 percent of white voters from voting might be just what poor blacks need."" https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/07/the-case-against-democracy
From the article:
"The political scientist Scott Althaus has calculated that a voter with more knowledge of politics will, on balance, be less eager to go to war, less punitive about crime, more tolerant on social issues, less accepting of government control of the economy, and more willing to accept taxes in order to reduce the federal deficit."
I only skimmed the article, but these were the only policy positions I found which intimated specifics concerning the alleged "wisdom" of these hypothetical Epistocratic elites, who would apparently be running things on behalf of benighted fools like myself. Needless to say that while I personally agree with many of those positions, I'm skeptical of the notion that high levels of intelligence and education lead to such a consensus.
I'm almost certain Brennan conveniently left out details entirely, and focused instead on the problems of democracy along with the potential theoretical strengths of his proposed system. But imo his inability (or unwillingness) to outline specifics shows just how elusive identifying something like political wisdom is. And if we can't at least point out some of its most basic features, then trying to create a system which allows for a higher concentration of "it" doesn't make much sense.
Contrast Nietzsche with JS Mill. Both highly educated men whose writings continue to exert significant influence on us. Nietzsche famously felt that Mill was an idiot (I believe a "blockhead" is the specific term he used), and I'm almost certain Mill would have reciprocated had he been aware of Nietzsche's writings. Whose perspective, if either, more closely resembles wisdom? They're radically opposed on essentials concerning politics, ethics, and pretty much everything else.
Setting aside obvious foreign counter-examples which challenge the assumption that the more educated someone is the more peaceful and progressive they will tend to be, even here in the relatively well-established bourgeois democracy of the United States one finds extremely affluent and highly educated Straussians (aka neoconservatives) who clearly don't share these basic positions, especially on war and crime. They are in many ways more barbaric in outlook than even the uneducated mob.
Come to think of it, this nation was an Epistocracy of sorts at its inception. But far from being unanimous in their views, the Founding Fathers vehemently disagreed over essentials regarding the government they brought into existence. In their collective wisdom they couldn't foresee things that seem obvious to us in hindsight, such as their inability to anticipate and/or proactively address the slavery issue which would nearly destroy the country in the not-too-distant future. (Of course one could counter-argue here, paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, that they did in fact agree on principles while only disagreeing in opinions.)
But that was an interesting and fun read. I think I'll go back and read it again in more depth. My impression is that while Brennan is (apparently) a legitimate scholar at a respected academic institution, he comes across as a provocateur more than anything else. But hey, maybe he's doing our democracy a service by questioning some of its most cherished assumptions, all in the hopes of reinvigorating it.
It just seems like the democratic instinct is so deeply ingrained in the populace of the Western world, and increasingly everywhere else, that there's no viable alternative to it. If an alternative political system were to somehow come into power, it would have to cloak itself in democratic garb. Epistocracy is completely unrealistic imo and not necessarily even desirable.
So it's a masterly work of devil's advocacy? That's a cheering thought, but I'm afraid it's all too sincere and dismal a thesis to be ironical.
I think the democratic instinct is so strong because everybody counts and nobody is of lesser account than anybody else.
I agree with that assessment concerning the strength of the instinct.
While Francis Fukuyama has been wrong on a number of things I do think he makes a valid point on this matter: liberal democracy is the only form of government which satisfies the "desire for recognition" which has developed in the West over hundreds of years through the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, etc. and is felt so strongly by individuals (and groups).
There may be temporary setbacks of course (e.g. failure to recognize marginalized groups which inspires SJW's), and the system will doubtless continue to be implemented imperfectly, but there's just no going back to monarchy or aristocracy or anything else, and every government which arises in the future will have to address peoples' desire to be recognized as the political equals of their fellow citizens, regardless of other differences.
Haha you're probably right about that. But can't one have a little fun in academia? I guess this is an indication of the democratic instinct in me that I can't even take the (vague) idea he puts forth seriously. Says a lot about the strength of my own biases, I guess.
I got offended just reading his proposals, and I'm going to flatter myself and assume I could easily pass whatever tests he or anyone else would design to limit participation in the system.
Brennan (I cannot speak for Estlund) is arguing that there is nothing inherently wrong with restricting suffrage based on the notion of political intelligence and capabilities, or knowledge in general. His point is that the nonconsequentialist arguments for requiring democracy fail, the general electorate is incompetent, and, as a result, if we can devise a system in which we restrict the electorate based on some standard of knowledge (and obviously produces overall better outcomes), then we ought to do that. Heck, his overall thesis for the book is just "if epistocracy produces better outcomes than democracy, then we ought to use epistocracy.
What that exactly entails is up for debate. His example of 80 percent of white voters is just that: an example. I could be an epistocrat and maintain that we devise a system that effectively excludes the bottom one percent of the population, or even less than that. The barrier can be so low that practically no one fails to meet the requirements. Education level does not have any necessary connection here.
Yep, that suits me. A barrier so low that everyone gets over it is not a barrier. So let's have no barrier. Practically no-one is exactly no-one, because everyone is practically someone. One person, therefore, one vote and no less or more.
I agree that as you say Brennan thinks the non-consequentialist arguments fail. The idea behind this thread is to test that view. As for the consequentialist arguments - one of the outcomes that the mere proposal of epistocracy has is the prospect of protests from people like me who are threatened with exclusion from the democratic process to which we have a right. Not a good start for a consequentialist project, I submit.
Alright, so what is the non-consequentialist argument? Consider that political power requires justification. States have a monopoly of violence which is considered legimate to use. When the state dictates a law, disobeying that law can result in the loss of my life, liberty, and property through violence. Consider why we don't allow children to vote. You could make a strong argument for allowing people much younger than the current age to vote, but there is still going to be some age which is universally considered too young to properly assess facts and ideas related to politics. I'm sorry, but if a group of people are learning how to do basic addition and subtraction, then they don't deserve to vote on how our society is set up.
I have a right to a fair trial. If a jury is obviously imcompetent, unfair, corrupt, utterly unconcerned, and/or demonstrably biased, then my trial is not fair. I require a competent jury. I require a competent jury even if having a incompetent one would lead to a better overall outcome in the end. It is unjust for a police chief to pay off a jury to find me guilty, even if the consequences of said action would greatly protect and save many lives. So, let's assume that epistocracy is shown that is produces overall better outcomes in terms of policy and justice compared to democracy and that many of the criticisms against epistocracy are unfounded or mitigated. For what reason must we maintain democracy over epistocracy?
Quoting Cuthbert
I agree that epistocracy currently lacks the empirical rigor that we desire. I do think that we need a lot more discussion and research on the subject. I can point out several flaws and weak arguments in Brennan. And I do think the major potential benefit of democracy, less violence within the state, is probably the strongest potential objection. Perhaps the sacred cow of democratic thought is needed both as a practice and an idea to help prevent violence, a benefit that would outweigh the gains made in any epistocracy.
However, I do not think the situation is totally against epistocracy. Democracy and universal suffrage were not exactly empirically verified (and still have problems) when their early supporters argued for it. The same arguments for suffrage for certain groups were lobbied as being dangerous to society and risky. So, we need to first present arguments in favor of epistocracy to gain ideological traction. In order to do that, we first have to actually get down to Winston Churchill's statement. Democracy is not desirable in and of itself; there is nothing worthwhile in the idea of "one person, one vote" besides the pragmatism behind it. It is not romantic at all. If we want democracy, it is because it is the least of all the evils. Only then can we actually compare the two. After that, I would start setting up experiments to see if epistocracy even has a chance of working. We can go from there if the results are positive.
One worthwhile aspect of 'one person, one vote' is that it is the political expression of the ethical viewpoint that every person counts and no person counts for any less than any other. "I'm backward, I know little and still I'm as good as you." Every person is of worth in him or herself and not merely of value in relation to ends pursued by others or by the State. It is the kingdom of ends argument.
Another argument is that the vote symbolises a social contract. "You want to govern me - first let me give you consent." So one non-consequentialist argument is that my vote is a right contracted in exchange for rights that the State has over me. Degrading my vote will erode the State's authority. Why should I obey when I have no say?
There have been 'natural experiments' of epistocracy in which those who are better informed and better educated have more votes than others. For example, boys used to get a much better education than girls in the UK and as a result men ended up with more votes than women in adulthood. It was easiest just to give the women no votes at all. Some women appeared content with this situation and unobtrusively ceded political power to those with supposedly better minds and a clearer view of world affairs. So that is one experiment that has been tried. I am not sure that the results were very encouraging for epistocracy in the long term.
Chany: "I'm sorry, but if a group of people are learning how to do basic addition and subtraction, then they don't deserve to vote on how our society is set up."
Tit for tat. If a group of people wish to deprive another group of people of a basic civil right - the vote - then they don't deserve to vote on how our society is set up. We can all think of excuses to deprive each other of votes. The point of a democracy is that millions of people can live together in peace despite these reasons. So in a democracy I will allow epistocrats to vote (fools that they are) and you will allow the illiterate and innumerate to do so. But you are right that I don't have a good reason to exclude minors from voting, although it leads to absurdities - it's a weakness in my position.
2. Isn't epistemocracy, broadly speaking, synonymous with Platonism? That's the philosophy that advocates in broad terms that a government and a society should be ruled by someone who possesses perfect knowledge (The Philosopher King), in a society arranged according to each own's epistemic compatibility in relation to the Truth. No?
I prefer epistocracy over democracy but I find there are too many socioeconomic problems that might exclude people that didn't have the chance to educate themselves. All while sudies have shown that high intelligent people often argue for their personal opinion to such extent that they adjust facts to fit their narrative. Epistocracy might then become a ruling class political system by the process and progress alone, which isn't good.
Epistocracy needs more framework to function, it needs protection of society from the risk of a ruling class. It needs to have a political system after election that review and govern the government based on the facts that the election was built upon. Otherwise it will just be a more advanced form of propaganda in which facts are adjusted or misrepresented in order to steer the educated into a certain vote.
I have some ideas for this. First, the epistocratic election includes a section that's for those not able to vote in the primary and their result will guide the elected with a popular need that the entire population have voted for. This need is a statistic that needs to be adressed in the coming government. Second, the government need to be more socialistic in nature, in order to counter the corruption that can arrise from a ruling class elite. I would say, that a more proper name would be "social epistocrat", like with "social democracy". The elected government must also adress their politics with transparency of the supporting facts. A governing agency would review policies and decisions based on the facts and if the facts are manipulated or wrong, the policy would not be able to be implemented in society.
It's possible to continue fine-tuning epistocracy to be a more functioning political system, it's easy to spot problems when something is in it's infancy.
I'm not sure how it's done in US, but in Sweden every citizen gets a voting card to have with you while you vote. This card is attached to your identity so that you can't vote more than once. Once used, it's used. Instead of it just being an identifier, it could be changed to a questionnaire in which you need every answer correct in order to be allowed to vote. This questionnaire focus on basic political questions and you are allowed to use whatever resource you have to be able to answer. So it's not a questionnaire out of knowledge but out of commitment. It would push away the lazy voters, the uneducated who can't even understand basic texts and those who never seek information and only gets spoon-fed propaganda. The process in itself would create a situation in which the dedicated and committed are the ones who gets to vote. In my prediction, it would function as a half step towards epistocracy but not be so strict that it might undermine democracy as we know it. It would erase pure incompetence and pure inability of political understanding.
Maybe called Dedicracy? Dedication in democracy.
I think people have unrealistic expectations of democracy - its core function is simply to avoid civil war, and then secondarily to manage whatever can and ought to be managed by a State. That discussion about "can" and "ought" should go on outside the democratic process, as part of the great conversation of society - that's where you'll get the greater proportional contributions of smarter people.
But the idea of "one man one vote" is core to the idea that, given the power of strength in numbers, and given the fact that if you zoom out, human beings are about as equally dangerous in the raw, then when you have groups of people with strongly held, opposing opinions, the best way to handle it is by a vote, that everyone agrees at a meta level to abide by, in the secure knowledge that if they can convince others and get their turn, they'll be able to implement at least some of what they want to implement.