Let’s Try Not to Get Sick

It is possible, maybe probable, that in less than a year, this country will re-elect the worst President in its history after he has been impeached. This raises an obvious and fundamental question – does democracy, the way we now do it, still work? 

I don’t claim to have a definite answer, but the question is one that we need to confront. It’s not like our democracy is some fixed, unchangeable universality. It is said that civilization is about 6,000 years old, so our democracy, at just over 230, is only an infant. And it’s been changed before – voting eligibility, direct election of Senators, and other tweaks. Many now want to get rid of the Electoral College, and I think that’s a good idea. But, maybe there are even more dramatic changes that could be considered.

I recently read an interesting book on the subject. It’s called, “Against Democracy” by a guy named Jason Brennan. Brennan is a philosopher and a professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy at Georgetown. His theory is that while our democracy is the best system now, we should be open to better possible alternatives. He even suggests some.

He favors trying an “Epistocracy.” He defines that as a system where the power is vested in the better informed. He cites to recent polls that show how uninformed so many Americans are. For example, one poll showed that one-quarter of all Americans don’t know who we fought in the Revolution.

Brennan is not, of course, the first to come up with this idea. As he notes, it goes back to Plato’s Republic where that wise old Greek advocated a philosopher-king. But, the book explains some more modern notions as well.

There’s the one espoused by John Stuart Mill. He suggested “plural voting” where some people get more votes than others. Brennan builds on that idea. He suggests a political literacy exam. A number of options would follow from that. It could be that only those who pass the exam could vote. Or, it could be that everyone could still vote, but that the votes of those who pass the exam would count for more than those who fail. There could also be incentives built into the exam system. Those who pass could get a cash prize. Those who fail could be fined.

But, basing voting on an exam raises the obvious question about who would create the exam and what it would ask. These types of exams harken back to the literacy tests in the south that prevented blacks from voting.

Brennan offers possibilities that avoid test-taking. One would be that everyone votes, but where the people they elect would be understood not to be bound by anything but their own conscience. Another would be a lottery system. In this, all would be entered in the lottery, but the limited number who are randomly chosen would then be required to attend pre-election education courses that would provide the basic information about the candidates and the issues. Those who attend the classes are the only ones who could then vote.

Brennan describes himself as a pragmatist. He prefers a system that works over one that is based on some moral custom. We now follow the custom of universal suffrage. But, based on what we may face in 2020, does that custom still work?

Brennan references a tribe in New Guinea that once followed a custom of eating their dead until they all got sick from it. Then, they stopped.

Customs are only good as long as they don’t make you sick.