Twila brought up an interesting question about whether one should have to pass a test to vote. I don't think it would be right to deprive anyone of their vote, but I have an alternate idea.
The best a democracy can hope for in the long run is mediocrity. That is assured by the one citizen/one vote rule. Whenever someone suggests modifying that rule there is a loud outcry of complaint, but there is no question that some votes are worth more in a qualitative sense than others. Some people vote after a thorough study of the issues, others with only a modest idea of what's going on, some are fueled by slogans and anger, and some have no clue whatsoever. If we wish to have a government that is better than mediocre -- or, in our current situation, a government that is able to function in any way -- we must give more influence to voters who know the most.
Once voting by computer, whether online or in a polling place, is standard, reasonable solutions become possible. I would propose that shortly before an election a bipartisan or non-partisan committee draw up 200 questions relevant to the candidates and issues in the election. When a person has initiated the voting process, he would have one vote. Then he would be presented with 8 of the 200 questions chosen randomly, and for each two questions answered correctly he would receive an extra vote; that is, his votes would count more. For example, if he answered only two questions correctly, each of his votes would count as two. Every person's votes would then have a weight of 1 to 5.
There would be no reason to keep secret the list of possible questions. Indeed, studying the list would improve most people's ability to vote sensibly.
I think this method of weighting votes would work very well until we achieve the ideal - government that is run entirely by computer.
I refer to your sentence "The best a democracy can hope for in the long run is mediocrity." I think democracy depends upon what people call 'the wisdom of crowds." A real phenomenon. Here's a summary:
ReplyDeleteJames Surowiecki’s 2004 book The Wisdom of Crowds offers a somewhat contrarian view of what is typically seen as a widespread bias: the human tendency to follow the crowd and go along with what the majority says is true. Surowiecki argues that in many cases, this is actually a reasonable thing to do, as crowds and groups are often much smarter and more accurate than even their smartest members.
There have been many experiments performed over the 20th century in which individuals and groups were asked to make various estimations and predictions, and in which the averaged prediction turns out to be highly accurate, often more accurate than even the best individual prediction of the group. Classic examples include traditional "how many beans in the jar" guessing contests. On these kinds of straightforward factual questions there is ample evidence that groups can perform very well.
Surowiecki also cites the accuracy of prediction markets, including sports betting as well as the newer election markets, where the consensus odds have proven to be highly accurate. Google’s PageRank is also invoked as an example of successfully exploiting the wisdom of crowds.