# Would a Country Work Better if Only Intellectuals Participated in Government? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2015, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331 "2015-03-06T02:17:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e79b87/32.png) [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Joker_and_the_Thief)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/101 "2015-03-08T03:42:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, are the monarch and aristos to be chosen for intellectual qualities as defined by the OP? Historically, I think, most such have been the sort who, to the contrary, “put more value on emotional reasoning, common-sense, and traditional beliefs.” Understandably so, since monarchy and aristocracy are fundamentally traditional things. The idea is that yes, the monarch and the aristocracy would be selected on the basis on intelligence. Regardless of the nature or nurture debate, parents usually pass their intelligence on to their children, so even a hereditary aristocracy would still be primarily composed of the smartest people. At least that what they say–practice is a different matter. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/102 "2015-03-08T03:54:19Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > “Logic and evidence” isn’t foolproof. You also have to accept that sometimes evidence-based methods might suck because of people being reactionary. A perfectly sound plan could fail, not because it was a bad plan, but because so many people were convinced it was bad they (consciously or not) undermined it. Ideas, plans, concepts, and people don’t always succeed on their merits and you can’t force it to happen. You can’t control for all factors. It was never meant to be foolproof; Just better than what we have in modern democracies. The benefit would have to be worth the painful transition, granted. Still, it could be less painful than the course America has with issues like global warming, or it’s foreign policy. > [@](#): > > I agree that our current state is perhaps a bit too faith based and reactionary, but it’s not like there’s any class of people without biases, or always able to admit they’re wrong. Hell, scientists can have massive egos and stage petty, passive aggressive political attacks on their completely correct competitors. I’ve heard a story of a physics conference where the mediator for a panel held up a conference for 45 minutes over time badgering the presenter with questions because he perceived the presenter’s work as an attack on his own. And made up for the “lost time” by giving the other presenters until break only 15 minutes to talk including questions (spoiler: all the other presenters were from the same lab). Everyone has biases, and most people have moments of petulance. Again, this is not a utopia I’m pitching. > [@](#): > > Your argument is essentially “let’s only let perfect people vote.” I mean, sure, cool, agreed. Where are we going to find them? Because, as far as I can tell, the definition of “rational people” I see most often is “those I agree with, or I think I could persuade to agree with me.” This actually works great in fields like Artificial Intelligence because computers are so dumb anything that seems like something I’d do is fucking genius, but it’s pretty useless for people. No, no it’s not. There is no such thing as a perfect person. Everyone has something they’re better suited towards than others. Some people aren’t able to think abstractly and rationalize as well as others. Those that can usually lack in other areas that people that can’t make up for in. Understanding causes to national and world problems is an abstract endeavour. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/103 "2015-03-08T12:38:57Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > A small aristocracy/ dictatorship is a far cry from the millions of people who would be voting from different demographics. It’s not the same as a select few holding onto power. Hmm. The problem with finding a real-world example is that, in the real world, limiting voting to intellectuals isn’t politically possible – not anywhere. So the closest seen is managed democracy where an educated elite gets special powers, minimizing the impact of universal suffrage elections. And that where Thailand is going: > **[2014 interim constitution of Thailand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_interim_constitution_of_Thailand#National_reforms)** > > The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim) 2014 (Thai: รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย (ฉบับชั่วคราว) พุทธศักราช ๒๕๕๗) was a constitution of Thailand in force between 2014 and 2017. > Drafted by law lecturers from Chulalongkorn University (CU), the constitution was enacted by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), a military junta led by General Prayut Chan-o-cha which staged a coup d'état against the caretaker government on 22 May 2014. Without public consultation, King Bhumibol... It’s premature to say for sure if these so-called reforms will work well. But I predict: No. As for the thread title, the answer is no. This is a recipe for instability and conflict greater than anything seen in democracies today. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/104 "2015-03-08T13:33:01Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Hmm. > > The problem with finding a real-world example is that, in the real world, limiting voting to intellectuals isn’t politically possible – not anywhere. So the closest seen is managed democracy where an educated elite gets special powers, minimizing the impact of universal suffrage elections. And that where Thailand is going: > > [2014 interim constitution of Thailand - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_interim_constitution_of_Thailand#National_reforms) > > It’s premature to say for sure if these so-called reforms will work well. But I predict: No. Yea, there are no real world examples to draw from. I don’t see it as very useful to try and force examples that don’t fit. > [@](#): > > As for the thread title, the answer is no. This is a recipe for instability and conflict greater than anything seen in democracies today. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/105 "2015-03-08T14:54:19Z")
> [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#): > > The idea is that yes, the monarch and the aristocracy would be selected on the basis on intelligence. Regardless of the nature or nurture debate, parents usually pass their intelligence on to their children, so even a hereditary aristocracy would still be primarily composed of the smartest people. At least that what they say–practice is a different matter. I think intelligence is like most other attributes. It needs to be developed through effort. Your first generation of aristocrats would be chosen for the demonstrated intelligence. (Much as the founder of a dynasty historically demonstrated his ability by the act of establishing his rule.) But subsequent generations would inherit their place in the aristocracy - they wouldn’t have the motivation to work on developing their abilities because they already have the reward. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/106 "2015-03-08T16:39:24Z")
> [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#): > > The idea is that yes, the monarch and the aristocracy would be selected on the basis on intelligence. Regardless of the nature or nurture debate, parents usually pass their intelligence on to their children, so even a hereditary aristocracy would still be primarily composed of the smartest people. At least that what they say–practice is a different matter. Then it’s not the same. Personality isn’t the same as intelligence. Personality describes your thinking preferences; Not how adept you are at those thinking preferences. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/107 "2015-03-08T18:32:51Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > “Personality refers to individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving. The study of personality focuses on two broad areas: One is understanding individual differences in particular personality characteristics, such as sociability or irritability. The other is understanding how the various parts of a person come together as a whole.” > > Personality is not knowledge or profession. Which is it? Personality or STEM? Either way, you’re actively promoting the disenfranchisement of voters. Yesterday they could vote - tomorrow they can’t. Plus, people are not going to re-elect legislators who would vote yea for the **Contemporary Logic** voter-disenfranchisement bill. No matter how you phrase your bill, you would have little popular support and very little legislative support. I’ve got an idea. How about letting all citizens of the U.S.A. vote in the elections held in their individual states? I know it’s a radical idea but most people seem to like the historical aspect of it. There are some existing restrictions, of course. Felons, and illegal aliens, aren’t suppose to vote. You could add a new restriction - People **Contemporary Logic** doesn’t find worthy. Good luck getting that passed. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/108 "2015-03-08T18:52:12Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Which is it? Personality or STEM? Either way, you’re actively promoting the disenfranchisement of voters. Yesterday they could vote - tomorrow they can’t. Plus, people are not going to re-elect legislators who would vote yea for the **Contemporary Logic** voter-disenfranchisement bill. No matter how you phrase your bill, you would have little popular support and very little legislative support. STEM is an acronym for the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. STEM fields were never used as a part of my original idea. The only time I referenced STEM was when I pointed out that you are more likely to find rational personality types in STEM related fields. It was merely an observation. I’ve already admitted previously that it wouldn’t have popular support. > [@](#): > > I’ve got an idea. How about letting all citizens of the U.S.A. vote in the elections held in their individual states? I know it’s a radical idea but most people seem to like the historical aspect of it. There are some existing restrictions, of course. Felons, and illegal aliens, aren’t suppose to vote. You could add a new restriction - People **Contemporary Logic** doesn’t find worthy. Good luck getting that passed. Cute. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/109 "2015-03-08T19:14:04Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > … Either way, you’re actively promoting the disenfranchisement of voters. Yesterday they could vote - tomorrow they can’t. Well, yes, but disenfranchisement is the whole question raised in the OP. The question being, would the country be better off if there was some sort of selective qualification for voters. The question isn’t whether this is democratic, moral, or feasible. The question is whether results would be better, presumably by such objective measures as economic strength, social stability, absence of crime and poverty, etc. if low-information dumbasses weren’t able to vote. I suppose it’s a question about whether “the wisdom of the common people” is really a thing or just pure mythology. I think most would probably agree with Churchill that no one can come up with anything better that works. So maybe a democracy has a solemn duty to do whatever it can try to ensure that the people who have been entrusted with all this power actually have some modicum of understanding about what they’re voting on. Otherwise you may as well ask whether you’re better off having the jet aircraft you’re flying in flown by a competent pilot or by a democratically elected drunken monkey. > [@doorhinge](#): > > Good luck getting that passed. I think we all agree on that. ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/110 "2015-03-08T19:45:13Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So maybe a democracy has a solemn duty to do whatever it can try to ensure that the people who have been entrusted with all this power actually have some modicum of understanding about what they’re voting on. That should be a big part of the reason for compulsory public education: If the people are to rule, the people have to have a clue. Has it worked? Sigh. About as well as many human things. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/111 "2015-03-08T20:45:27Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > This is more speculation than an idea ready-made for implementation. I’m not proposing any heuristic for testing whether a person meets this criteria or not. I’m simply asking if society would meet utilitarian goals better by taking votes away from people who put less value on critical thinking, logic, and evidence based reasoning, and put more value on emotional reasoning, common-sense, and traditional beliefs. > > It’s hard to expect a positive outcome in modern democracies like America where voting rights are considered essential (at least for a few generations until it became the norm). Would this idea require a shift in cultural values, or would it fail in any setting? > [@wolfpup](#): > > Well, yes, but disenfranchisement is the whole question raised in the OP. The question being, would the country be better off if there was some sort of selective qualification for voters. The question isn’t whether this is democratic, moral, or feasible. The question is whether results would be better, presumably by such objective measures as economic strength, social stability, absence of crime and poverty, etc. if low-information dumbasses weren’t able to vote. > > I suppose it’s a question about whether “the wisdom of the common people” is really a thing or just pure mythology. I think most would probably agree with Churchill that no one can come up with anything better that works. So maybe a democracy has a solemn duty to do whatever it can try to ensure that the people who have been entrusted with all this power actually have some modicum of understanding about what they’re voting on. Otherwise you may as well ask whether you’re better off having the jet aircraft you’re flying in flown by a competent pilot or by a democratically elected drunken monkey. It would be far easier to start a new government with limited voting access than to convert an existing government. Conversion would require a great deal of trust in the proposed system itself, and a great deal of trust in those who will select (or are annointed to select) who, and who can not, vote in the future. Conversion would also require an incredible ability to reach a working compromise. A skill that seems to have been lost in recent decades. A democracy does have a solemn duty to educate it’s youth. Do you believe the majority of high school graduates truly understand the history of the U.S. or how their state and federal government actually works? Do you believe the majority of university graduates truly understand how their state or federal government operates? Operates, not “how it should operate after (insert new political agenda here) changes it”. The voters have a duty to educate themselves and the education systems have a duty to ensure an plethera of knowledgable voters. Any attempt to disenfranchise U.S. voters will fail in any setting. Attempts in other countries will depend on how strong their militaries are. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/112 "2015-03-08T20:46:51Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > Has it worked? Sigh. About as well as many human things. I’d call it a success. The United States, for example, seems to have done okay since 1776. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/113 "2015-03-08T21:04:10Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’d call it a success. The United States, for example, seems to have done okay since 1776. Or since 1788 when the U.S. Constitution was ratified. > **[Observing Constitution Day](https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/ratification.html)** > > Background On September 17, 1787, a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention approved the documents over which they had labored since May. After a farewell banquet, delegates swiftly returned to their homes to organize support,... George Washington was elected President of the U.S.A. on Feb 04, 1789, and took the oath on April 30, 1789. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/114 "2015-03-08T21:32:30Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Well, yes, but disenfranchisement is the whole question raised in the OP. The question being, would the country be better off if there was some sort of selective qualification for voters. The question isn’t whether this is democratic, moral, or feasible. The question is whether results would be better, presumably by such objective measures as economic strength, social stability, absence of crime and poverty, etc. if low-information dumbasses weren’t able to vote. This is the closest assessment of my original proposition; The only differences being two: One, that the qualitative benefit would be to an increase in the total net-happiness of individuals in a society, and two, that the only metric would be based off personality. I’m open to discuss more specific, objective outcomes, and knowledge-based criteria for voting, but I want to avoid explaining away strawmans as much as possible, so I nit-picked the differences. A knowledge-based test would keep with the idea of “A well-informed electorate is a prerequisite for democracy.” A lot of people do seem to be offended morally by the idea, however, all their emotional-based objections are off-topic since, as you said, the OT isn’t concerned with morality (outside of utilitarianism). > [@](#): > > I suppose it’s a question about whether “the wisdom of the common people” is really a thing or just pure mythology. I think most would probably agree with Churchill that no one can come up with anything better that works. So maybe a democracy has a solemn duty to do whatever it can try to ensure that the people who have been entrusted with all this power actually have some modicum of understanding about what they’re voting on. Otherwise you may as well ask whether you’re better off having the jet aircraft you’re flying in flown by a competent pilot or by a democratically elected drunken monkey. > I think we all agree on that. I think there is great merit to what Churchill said. All of human history can be viewed as a series of sloppy lab experiments, and democracy is what has prevailed. The difference I see in the last hundred years are changes in the field of Psychology. Carl Jung came out with his theories on personality in the 20s and B. F. Skinner completely turned upside down concepts like “freedom” and “free-will”. Can we incorporate any of this into the way our government is run? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/115 "2015-03-08T21:43:33Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Well, yes, but disenfranchisement is the whole question raised in the OP. The question being, would the country be better off if there was some sort of selective qualification for voters. The question isn’t whether this is democratic, moral, or feasible. The question is whether results would be better, presumably by such objective measures as economic strength, social stability, absence of crime and poverty, etc. if low-information dumbasses weren’t able to vote. But again, you can’t figure out if it would be better to do X until you define X. And if X isn’t a scientific thing, just a “you know it when you see it” thing, it’s not defined. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/116 "2015-03-08T22:28:30Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Or since 1788 when the U.S. Constitution was ratified. > > [Observing Constitution Day | National Archives](http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/ratification.html) > George Washington was elected President of the U.S.A. on Feb 04, 1789, and took the oath on April 30, 1789. I’m aware of these things. But the United States also had a democratic government under the Articles of Confederation. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/117 "2015-03-09T00:52:56Z")
The late Bill Buckley once said “I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” Now, he has a point. I’d rather be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than by Bill Buckley and 1,999 of his best friends and colleagues, but the point is the same, and it’s a good one (even if Bill Buckley was really just a pseudo-intellectual and wouldn’t come up in a discussion of which intellectuals should run things). “Intellectuals” (a) can’t really be defined all that precisely, and (b) are demonstrably no more likely to be good at governing than anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/118 "2015-03-09T01:37:44Z")
I think we somehow missed an obvious point along the way. We don’t live in a direct democracy and never have by design. The Democratic Republic model is architected so that there is a clear buffer between ‘the people’ and those that actually vote on actual laws or fill the Supreme Court (who are arguably the most intellectual of the three branches of government). There are plenty of problems with this model as well but elected representatives at least need the motivation, money, speaking skills and some degree of intellect to land those positions at all (feel free to give counter-examples but the point is that good ole Rosco from the local trailer park isn’t likely to be voting directly on Supreme Court Justices any time soon). There has been some pressure to go the opposite route of this thread - direct voting for most things. I am strongly opposed to that. California has gone that route to some extent and it has been a disaster because it undermines that very idea of a true state constitution and brings out all of the problems of the commons. People vote themselves unrealistic measures like limits on property taxes without having any perspective for the whole. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/119 "2015-03-09T01:56:45Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > There has been some pressure to go the opposite route of this thread - direct voting for most things. I am strongly opposed to that. California has gone that route to some extent and it has been a disaster because it undermines that very idea of a true state constitution and brings out all of the problems of the commons. People vote themselves unrealistic measures like limits on property taxes without having any perspective for the whole. The central problem with voter initiatives is the voters can choose to only issue a decree and then hand it back to the professionals and essentially tell them, “Here’s what we want. Now you figure out a way to make it work.” It’s easy, for example, to decide that you want to have a government with no taxes. The difficult part is figuring out how to run a government without taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/120 "2015-03-09T02:05:29Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I think we somehow missed an obvious point along the way. We don’t live in a direct democracy and never have by design. The Democratic Republic model is architected so that there is a clear buffer between ‘the people’ and those that actually vote on actual laws or fill the Supreme Court (who are arguably the most intellectual of the three branches of government). There are plenty of problems with this model as well but elected representatives at least need the motivation, money, speaking skills and some degree of intellect to land those positions at all (feel free to give counter-examples but the point is that good ole Rosco from the local trailer park isn’t likely to be voting directly on Supreme Court Justices any time soon). > > There has been some pressure to go the opposite route of this thread - direct voting for most things. I am strongly opposed to that. California has gone that route to some extent and it has been a disaster because it undermines that very idea of a true state constitution and brings out all of the problems of the commons. People vote themselves unrealistic measures like limits on property taxes without having any perspective for the whole. These representatives still appeal to the lowest common denominator of their bases. Politicians vote according to what get’s them elected next term; Not what society they want to live in. A great politician is measured by how exceptionally average his stances are. Limiting certain votes in a representative democracy, or a direct democracy, would still lead to more rational decisions being made. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331.md?page=7)