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.
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.
Everyone has biases, and most people have moments of petulance. Again, this is not a utopia I’m pitching.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Why?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cute.
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.
I think we all agree on that.
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.
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.
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.
George Washington was elected President of the U.S.A. on Feb 04, 1789, and took the oath on April 30, 1789.
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 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?
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.
I’m aware of these things. But the United States also had a democratic government under the Articles of Confederation.
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.
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.
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.
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.