Would a Meritocratic Republic Outperform Contemporary Democracies?

[Czcibor]

Not necessarily. Eg., the members of the US congress.

Actually, you show here shortcomings of democracy - general population is able to select out of their elites actually the less desirable people.

David Duke (LSU class of 1974) former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. G.W. Bush (Yale class of 1968) former US president, and born again Christian fundamentalist. Noam Chomsky, Harvard professor and radical political commentator. The aggregate of highly educated people in favor of marijuana legalization. The US congress. Etc. Etc.

But you play here cherry picking. Yes, you can find a well educated freak. Does it prove your point? You can also find a poorly educated freak. Does it prove my point?

What matters is part of proportion - would the percentage of freakish ideas move down? So far I have shown two cases (Poland, Germany) where that what I say work. You mentioned support for legalised marijuana. May you go into details? (ex. why its a bad idea including that so far the alternative was imprisoning both sellers and users; why it should be illegal while alcohol and tobacco is legal; If we had to select as least harmful two psychoactive substances to be legal as recreation drug would we actually chooses alcohol and nicotine?)

In a country with universal suffrage, voting is a more or less fundamental right. Silly to nitpick this.

Maybe it is silly to use circular reasoning? In the same way as considering as self evident fact that in monarchy throne has to be pass to the oldest son of the monarch. (It neither proves that the new heir is the most competent candidate for being monocrat, nor that the whole monarchy is the best idea)

I'm sure you understand the different values placed on voting and driving.

Higher sentimental value that outweighs practical arguments? Part of national identity in the US?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Maybe it is silly to use circular reasoning? In the same way as considering as self evident fact that in monarchy throne has to be pass to the oldest son of the monarch. (It neither proves that the new heir is the most competent candidate for being monocrat, nor that the whole monarchy is the best idea)

I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse in not understanding why voting is considered a fundamental modern right. The reason is to after a long history of dictatorship there were many forms of revolution in different societies because those small groups with a disproportionate amount of power abused it. The best check against tyranny is a democracy. What's to stop a meritocracy forming into an aristocracy? What checks and balances prevent this? The argument that intelligent people tend to be more moderate (which I'm still not convinced by if only because moderate is a relative, subjective term) isn't enoug to guarantee that after a few generations those with privilege of voting won't have gamed the system for their benefit. I doubt they'd even think of it as bad any more than an heir to a thrown would have.

As a thought experiment why don't you look to the countries of the Arab spring and see if they would be better served by a meritocracy? Given the huge diversity of cultures and ideologies try and see if you can come up with a system that doesn't just repeat the same old disenfranchisement.

 

[nanosiborg]

Czcibor, before we continue our discussion of your reasons for liking the idea of a test that would greatly reduce the voter pool, and assuming that no new problems are created that are attributable to abuses by the meritocracy itself, I would like to ask:

1. What specific existing problems would a meritocracy be uniquely able to solve?

That is, voters in the meritocratic system will still be functionaries of essentially the same political system which elects to public office candidates of the two major parties, Republicans and Democrats, almost exclusively. Given that the existing system is the system which has created our current problems, I can understand how belief in the possibilility of systematically legislated positive change might result from significantly modifying the affiliations and affinities of the candidate pool -- but what sorts of positive changes might be expected from modifying the minimum education level of the voter pool?

(Keeping in mind that any projected positive changes will be evaluated in conjunction with risks entailed by the national scale massive disenfranchisement which would inevitably result from implementation of a voter selection process such as you endorse.)

 

[Skrew]

At creation the voting system in America was different. You had to be a white male landowner to vote. For the landownership requirement, the idea was to make sure only people who had a vested interest in the country succeeding could influence it.

I don't think it should be put into place now(at least not without significant other changes such as removal of the draft).

I would support having to prove your citizenship and a basic understanding of what's being voted on.

 

[BobG]

I would support having to prove your citizenship and a basic understanding of what's being voted on.

Or who's being voted for?

One easy change would be to eliminate party designations on ballots. If the voter knows nothing of the candidate other than the letter after his name, then get rid of the letters so the ignorant votes cancel each other out.

Proving citizenship is a good idea, but doesn't really address any current problems - at least at the voting booth where voter fraud is extremely rare. What happens with absentee ballots is anyone's guess. Voter fraud on absentee ballots probably happens a lot more than voter fraud at the voting booth, whether it's benign (a parent filling in a ballot for their kid that's away at college over the phone and the only "fraud" is the signature) or a little more serious (filling the ballot for an elderly parent living in the home, filling out the ballot based of a kid away at college based on how the parent thinks the kid should vote, etc).

As for understanding what's being voted on, I'd be happy if voters understood the difference between an amendment to the state constitution and a law. But that's because I live in Colorado, which is probably the easiest state in the nation to get constitutional amendments on the ballot.

At least people seem to be learning, as frustration over so many constitutional amendments has risen in recent years. There were some really damaging amendments passed - perhaps not damaging in themselves, but a combination of amendments that put the state on a course towards disaster (a conservative amendment that chokes off revenue and a liberal amendment that guarantees increased spending, for example - dueling amendments don't cancel each other out - they combine to create chaos).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I've made this point somewhere else in the thread but listening to a lecture just now gave me a more concise way to voice this criticism: we need to take into account the difference between facts and values.

The former undoubtably informs the later to the extent that the higher quantity and quality of facts you possesses on an issue will make it easier and more reliable to decide what your values are. However the way facts affect values are different for different people based on the sum total of values and the moral system that gave rise to them.

It's this interplay between facts and values that brings about the oppressive nature of meritocracy. Think of a series of controversial issues: abortion, euthanasia, economic regulation vs economic freedom, environmentalism, animal rights, immigration, urbanisation, freedom of speech vs freedom from assault etc etc. Leaving aside that some of the time people take certain views because they are under or misinformed a lot of the time people can have access to the same set of facts but value them differently. For instance: some people's values dictate that universal healthcare is a good thing even if it costs a significant amount whereas others don't value universal healthcare and think that if you can't afford healthcare you can't afford it. There's no conflict of facts here, this isn't a case of experts versus laymen but of people having different values.

In a meritocracy as is described here there is no guarantee that the 80% will have their values listened to or represented. In effect the values of the 20% will be the only ones that matter.

 

[Zarqon]

I've made this point somewhere else in the thread but listening to a lecture just now gave me a more concise way to voice this criticism: we need to take into account the difference between facts and values.

The former undoubtably informs the later to the extent that the higher quantity and quality of facts you possesses on an issue will make it easier and more reliable to decide what your values are. However the way facts affect values are different for different people based on the sum total of values and the moral system that gave rise to them.

It's this interplay between facts and values that brings about the oppressive nature of meritocracy. Think of a series of controversial issues: abortion, euthanasia, economic regulation vs economic freedom, environmentalism, animal rights, immigration, urbanisation, freedom of speech vs freedom from assault etc etc. Leaving aside that some of the time people take certain views because they are under or misinformed a lot of the time people can have access to the same set of facts but value them differently. For instance: some people's values dictate that universal healthcare is a good thing even if it costs a significant amount whereas others don't value universal healthcare and think that if you can't afford healthcare you can't afford it. There's no conflict of facts here, this isn't a case of experts versus laymen but of people having different values.

In a meritocracy as is described here there is no guarantee that the 80% will have their values listened to or represented. In effect the values of the 20% will be the only ones that matter.

I agree with basic arguement, however, I've been trying to point out that a meritocratic system based on absolute requirements (such as a fixed level of education) makes more sense to argue about than does a system of relative requirements (such as 20% of the population). In the former case everyone is still allowed to vote, you just need to show that you're capable of understanding at least some facts first. In a a relative system you get exactly the problems you describe, but I think in an absolute system you can avoid them, because you're never excluding a class of people permanently.

Another point is that I do believe that some things that are considered values will change (read improve) with a rising education level. For example, how many people on these formums do you think are racist? I can't provide hard facts of course, but I'm willing to bet that it's substantially fewer than the average of the population as a whole. Education does improve peoples values towards what I would consider to be a better society, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Skrew]

I've made this point somewhere else in the thread but listening to a lecture just now gave me a more concise way to voice this criticism: we need to take into account the difference between facts and values.

The former undoubtably informs the later to the extent that the higher quantity and quality of facts you possesses on an issue will make it easier and more reliable to decide what your values are. However the way facts affect values are different for different people based on the sum total of values and the moral system that gave rise to them.

It's this interplay between facts and values that brings about the oppressive nature of meritocracy. Think of a series of controversial issues: abortion, euthanasia, economic regulation vs economic freedom, environmentalism, animal rights, immigration, urbanisation, freedom of speech vs freedom from assault etc etc. Leaving aside that some of the time people take certain views because they are under or misinformed a lot of the time people can have access to the same set of facts but value them differently. For instance: some people's values dictate that universal healthcare is a good thing even if it costs a significant amount whereas others don't value universal healthcare and think that if you can't afford healthcare you can't afford it. There's no conflict of facts here, this isn't a case of experts versus laymen but of people having different values.

In a meritocracy as is described here there is no guarantee that the 80% will have their values listened to or represented. In effect the values of the 20% will be the only ones that matter.

This is correct. I often see people wrongly believing that disagreement on the part of the other party is a result of ignorance. People can be presented with the same information and come to different conclusions.

If there was a way to test only the understanding of facts then I would support it but any other requirement comes down to supporting a set of beliefs or ideologies either directly or indirectly.

For example making education a requirement places arbitrary value on having completed the education system and results in a system biased in support of a certain belief. There are many people who are in complete understanding of the factual information on the issues being voted on but haven't pursued higher education for what ever reason.

Unfortunately even requiring an understanding of factual information is pretty fuzzy when it comes to what facts are important.

 

[nsaspook]

For example, how many people on these formums do you think are racist? I can't provide hard facts of course, but I'm willing to bet that it's substantially fewer than the average of the population as a whole. Education does improve peoples values towards what I would consider to be a better society, wouldn't you agree?

Would there be "affirmative action" in the meritocratic system and if there was not would it be racist not to have "affirmative meritocracy".

http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/expert/steele.html

 

[nazarbaz]

The democratic bias tend to stress on who is voting in the political organizations called democratic governments and societies : nowadays, informed analysts, and almost every intelligent person, know that the democratic ideals are mere theory or simply flawed. "Peoples" are not the main characters of history and voting does not enable them to do so, which does not mean that the formal functioning of actual democracies has no "good" or "bad" effects on ruling organizations.
All forms of political organization combine democratic elements and oligarchic ones. Determining the best form of governement will never have an absolute and defintive outcome or answer : every society and historical context will bring its own truth and its own "dosage" between elitist components and a much larger "participation". Personnally, I don't like democracy : for me, it's a primitive politcal ideology shaped by the historical and cultural context of the western european countries where "law" became the main balance to "absolute power" by emphasizing on mythological subjects (as "peoples") and features like "rational and individual choice".
When a governement or any form of collective power does not intend to be absolute and to "exert coercion on its people", democracy like we know it becomes far than sufficient for a society aiming to achieve better, or simply more suitable, standards of ruling and living. It is the system of demagogic efficiency since public relations becomes the main subject, mean and goal of politics, policy and polity : it's all appearance, imagery and clichés cynically maintained for their so called moderating effects on political behavior and not for their own value : voting is one of them. No elitist conspiracy behind this : a mix of belief, naïveté and lack of workable alternative make the force of the paradigm in a world where the success of capitalism makes the domination of the state, and exactly the democratic form of it, more or less acceptable.
I must be clear : if democracy is problematic, it's not because average citizens are not enough educated or qualified to "participate" in the political process (such judgments are meaningless). The stupidity of the political debate is a side effect of the democratic functioning : when the main goal of participation is to make people say yes or no, to push them into picking an option in a structured bi-partisan alternative, we must not be surprised by the general mediocrity of the political debate. The sense and intelligence of complexity is completely eluded in such systems.
Saying that there is only one way to organize a governement and a society is the very root and route of tyranny and imbecility. So Let's open our minds to new proposals while knowing very well that there's no such things as absolutely "legitimate, moral or rational governement" to obey to and will never be, except for political morons.

 

[caldweab]

You realize that type of thinking is exactly what led to the civil rights movement. Furthermore how can you say with certainty that just because someone can't pass an "applied exam" that they are not educated enough to review a candidates platform and vote for whoever best supports their needs? It's not really that complicated and even if they choose a candidate that doesn't support your views doesn't mean that they didn't make an educated and informed decision.

 

[Godeij]

My immediate response is no but then the argument is sound to a point for that exact reason. You only have to look through history to see the benefits and obvious downfalls to an elitist political system.

Better education for a shrinking labor force is long term but history has never been as capable as we are today to change a culture of mediocrity into something beautiful. This forum is firsthand proof of an evolving culture in terms of better education through communication.

newbie blissfulness

 

[~PN(~PN)]

Reformism is masochism. Our 'elected officials' are images of the universal influence and permeation of the dominant order and its' mechanisms- the autonomous economy. There's no need to train people to better spectate their own existences/consciousnesses, this is an unnecessary/confused argument.

 

[jim hardy]

Reformism is masochism. Our 'elected officials' are images of the universal influence and permeation of the dominant order and its' mechanisms- the autonomous economy. There's no need to train people to better spectate their own existences/consciousnesses, this is an unnecessary/confused argument.

I agree, but only with your last six words.

 

[~PN(~PN)]

I agree, but only with your last six words.

Could you please identify the respect(s) in which my statement is unnecessary/confused?

 

[ImaLooser]

Because of some ambiguity of word meritocracy, by meritocracy I mean here a republic but where only better educated part of population (ex.: 20%) has voting rights.

I dunno. You could look at systems in which only property owners could vote.

 

[BobG]

In the 1800's, education levels were generally low. I think it's safe to say that less than 10% of people graduated from high school (although education wasn't a high enough priority to keep statistics on in the 1800's, so it would be tough to verify that statement). Voter turnout was in the 70% to 80% range.

By 1940, 40% of kids graduated from high school. That still meant that over 70% of the population hadn't graduated from high school, since the emphasis on education was so recent (the first year that education levels were a high enough priority to be included in the census). Now, over 85% of the population are high school graduates. Voter turnout has ranged from 50% to 60% for most of the 20th century and later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections
http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/fig2.jpg

So associating higher education levels with voter responsibility may not be valid. It would be equally invalid to say higher education levels decrease voter responsibility.

It's more likely lower voter turnouts and higher education levels had a common cause, though. Increased urbanization requires higher education levels, but it also leaves the average person feeling less connected to his government and what the government does.

In a small town, a person might be pretty darn sure they don't want to vote Barney Fife for sheriff because they're afraid to let him carry a gun. In a large metropolis, the average voter doesn't really know the people he's voting for. He's relying on what other people say about him (and doesn't really know the people he's listening to, for that matter).

The disconnect between the average person and people in government bothers people regardless of their education level, but the response to that disconnect could be related to education level. That disconnect is part of the reason the idea of term limits are so popular and why even a city of 400,000 might only pay its city council members $7,000 a year. They don't like the idea of full time politicians that respond more to special interest groups padding their wallets than they do to voters. But it also glosses over the fact that policies like these tend to guarantee that their government will be run by amateurs with none to little experience running a city or state (and that's a naivity that could certainly be related to education level).

But, in general, I think you're attacking the wrong problem by focusing on education levels (but at least you only seem to be disenfranchising 30% of the population since half the people don't vote, anyway).

 

[jim hardy]

Could you please identify the respect(s) in which my statement is unnecessary/confused?

ipsa loquitor

 

[ImaLooser]

The big problem is what is "merit?" Inevitably the answer favors some group or the other.