The Case Against Democracy

Brennan calls people who don’t bother to learn about politics hobbits, and he thinks it for the best if they stay home on Election Day. A second group of people enjoy political news as a recreation, following it with the partisan devotion of sports fans, and Brennan calls them hooligans.

I do enjoy the specific calling out of people who watch political news like sports as also being part of the problem. Watching CNN, FOX News, etc does not mean you are politically informed or in a good position to intelligently discuss politics.

Democracy is other people, and the ignorance of the many has long galled the few, especially the few who consider themselves intellectuals.

This is part-article, part-book-review discussing one (of many) problems with democracy - that the very nature of democracy means that everyone gets one vote and that no single vote is worth more than the another.

The case made by the author of the book being reviewed is that an epistocracy should be preferred. A system where people who are more intelligent hold more weight in a vote. This is, at first take, something that everyone would likely oppose - it sounds elitist and flies in the face of all of the struggles to get equal voting for all people. At second or third take, though, I do not think it is so crazy. Obviously the logistics of figuring out how it would work seem like a nightmare but the idea that someone who is voting for someone because they like the cut of their jib can cast a vote that is worth as much as someone who has studied the candidates and the party platforms seems unfair as well.