Scientists Say People Aren't Smart Enough For Democracy To Flourish 1276
cold fjord writes "The inability of the incompetent to recognize their own limitations is a story that has been covered before on Slashdot. But, what happens when you apply that finding to politics? From the article: 'The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies. The research shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. If people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments...democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."'"
Re:Democracy is 51% telling the other 49% what to (Score:5, Interesting)
The best quote I've heard is that true democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner (usually attributed to Ben Franklin).
Easy (Score:5, Interesting)
"incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people"
Not sure why it took "research" to understand this. I thought everyone knew this.
Re:As Winston Churchill Said (Score:5, Interesting)
How about this one then:
"We are now in a period where there are mediocre men everywhere. People have opinions but no knowledge, and leaders are made in the image of the masses. Democracy is only tolerable because no other system is." --Dean Acheson
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Prerequisite for voting? (Score:3, Interesting)
And I was just reading the other day also about the rampant illiteracy and innumeracy in today's society.
It really makes me wonder if we shouldn't establish some sort of prerequisite for voting. Say a College Diploma or 4 years of military service. Two tracks.
Heinlein took all kind of shit for proposing something similar in Starship Troopers [wikipedia.org], even being called a fascist. At the time, I didn't really appreciate the idea fully, either. But now I can see that if you had served in WWII, anything smacking of fascism would never have been voted for in the US.
Nowadays... not so much. This kind of enfranchisement prerequisite can't have a worse effect than handing down decisions like "unlimited political contributions are free speech that may not be abridged."
Re:Not smart Enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll take you seriously.
The Founding Fathers did an incredible initial job. The problem is that slowly corrupting forces withered away at those freedoms.
Take a deep breath:
"Average people are not smart enough to create a Darknet on Retroshare as Govt keeps banning more and more types of information sharing. Average people are not smart enough to actively log out of their accounts while Google gives them targeted ads in their email based on what they watched on Youtube. Politicians are not smart enough to vote against a bill labeled "Protect the Children From Internet Pornographers Act" because they're either dreading the instant Ad Hominem smeared in the papers (and indexed by Google remember?), or else they are already bought and want the powers for themselves."
They got it backwards (Score:5, Interesting)
The first and main advantage of democarcy over is that a government can be thrown out without a bloody revolution. This prevents common people being hurt by the political plays of violent social climbers, where previously they were used as literal pawns on the battleground.
It usually also has the benefit of keeping the current leader in check; a truly terrible elected government will have a quick fall, so they have to at least pretend to cater to the will of people. This is a small plus that too often can be subverted, but even without it I'd say that the first reason makes democracy worth every penny.
Welcome to 400 BC (Score:5, Interesting)
A few thousand years ago, philosophers were already indicating that the inherent problem with Democracy was that the majority of people were never going to be smart/wise/informed enough to make appropriate decisions. The founders of the United States also identified this as a problem, and had many debates about how to mitigate the dangers.
James Madison knew this in 1788 (Score:2, Interesting)
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
-- Federalist #51
Why are we paying these scientists again?
Re:Not smart Enough? (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with the article when it comes to politics...
Perfect example is my neighbor. There is another guy (Ron) who has been spearheading a group who are concerned with the local sewer plant project. The plant is in a flood zone along the river, and was built in the 70s. They now want to expand it which means building up the ground around the old plant so the new additions will be above flood levels just like the current sections are.
Issue is, if you look at the past flood level information provided by NOAA and what not, there were flood levels higher in height before the plant was built that really didn't impact the near by houses, but after it was build lower flood levels swamped the area pretty severely.
This Ron guy ran for the township board and won. He ran as a republican... which is what my neighbor "is". I asked my neighbor after all the stuff he and Ron had done working against the sewer plant project and all that, if he would have voted for Ron had he ran as a Democrat. He told me a flat out "no". So even though they matched up on one of the highest impact issues right now in our township, he wouldn't have voted him in just because of a party label... and chances are the republican he would have voted for wouldn't have shared his concerns or.views on this project.
This to me is a big lack of intelligence.. voting on a party label rather than what the person actually cares about and their stance on issues that impact you the most
Re:Not smart Enough? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know anyone can learn to quote law books. Its just wrote learning. I have not heard any of his Harvard lectures but while polished not political speech has stuck me as terribly intelligent. Intelligent demonstrated in speech would be thru combining idea in new ways and showing unique insight into existing problems.
Obama as far as I have head has push plenty of jingoism, catchy sound bytes like "Hope and Change", and lots of very tired old saw. I am not saying the man is not intelligent but I doubt he really has much on most the people who post here.
Re:Not smart Enough? (Score:4, Interesting)
...and so it is with politics.
Democracy fails because it is done in much the same way; we rely on others to give us a sound bite of what each candidate stands for. There is no *real* information on what a politician believes or will do, because of the nature of the political process to some degree, and ultimately the lack of benefit to their campaign to be honest and specific.
While the US is a mess in many ways, I think Thailand is a more interesting example of what happens when democracy is truly corrupted with lack of intelligence. I'm not even sure if I can explain why... but it is a good experience to go to the country during an election season and see for yourself. The one advantage they have over us is that the formal campaigns are only a few weeks long, but the power and organization of the political parties makes the individual candidate less critical to the process, and maintains a few real power brokers that are often out of the spotlight. (Much like US politics.)
Re:Why do I need to add a subject? (Score:5, Interesting)
But sometimes, you should vote for people because they are good liars! For example, I expect many atheists in America will vote for Obama, because they hope he lies about his faith. I expect many Republicans voted for Bush because they hoped that the pandering was just lies.
It is part of a politician's job to tell a convincing lie. I think we can never have enough transparency, but even then, it is illusory to hope for people to never lie. And there are cases that lies are necessary: I would not expect leadership to say anything about, say, military preparations...
Re:Democracy is 51% telling the other 49% what to (Score:5, Interesting)
The best quote I've heard is that true democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner (usually attributed to Ben Franklin)
And true liberty is when the sheep has a gun
Re:Smart enough isn't the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Please stop that drivel immediately. Do you americans really believe that crap? You are a democracy and a republic is a type of structure for a government. You can have a republic which is unelected or elected and you can have a parliamentary system which is democratically elected on not in theory. Democracy concerns how representatives are chosen, not how representation is structured or how powers are divided within the government. You can also have a combination of elected and unelected portions of a government.
Finland, for example is a combination of a republic and a parliamentary system and they are a democracy. They have a president and a prime minister and the latter choses their cabinet from among members in their parliament. Canada is a parliamentary democracy, with a democratically elected house of commons and an unelected senate.
Re:Not smart Enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the core problem with this discussion is that "smart" is such a loaded word. I know I'm pretty savvy with computers, and very clever with algorithms and design. I'm pretty well-read, and I know quite a lot about the world's history and its present situation. I know a lot about how things work, both natural and man-made. However, I have found that I'm a pretty bad judge of character, and can be somewhat gullible when my guard is down. Am I smart? Would Democracy do better or worse having had my participation?
Representation by lottery (Score:4, Interesting)
How about represntation by lottery? "Sorry, sir, you "won" the lottery and have to go to Congress."
This idea occurred to me because I read somewhere that "average people on the street" do better on civics tests than average Congresspeople.
At least, if you have a lottery like I propose, then you get real population representation. You'll have single moms, welfare people, homeless, lots of middle class, and maybe just ONE OR TWO (in the Senate) rich bastards.
And *all* of them there as a duty, not as some sort of power trip.
--PM
Re:Welcome to 400 BC (Score:4, Interesting)
There is strong evidence to the contrary, that governments work, even dictatorships work, even authoritarian monarchies work, even in the "lawless" areas in the Hindukush mountains between Afganistan and Kazhakstan, there is order, there is a local law, a custom, a way of life where large number of people have large number of peaceful daily transactions. Yeah, they will kill without mercy who they see as enemy. But day in day out, in their daily dealings with one another, even when they have to deal with their "enemy" violent confrontations are rare not the norm. Even among the koi-san people of kalahari or the Fore people of New Guinea where warfare is constant, more than 90% of their interactions with one another is peaceful and honest.
Re:Not smart Enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of his intellect.
Re:Not smart Enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think any political theorist has ever thought that democracy would create qualitatively better governments than other means of choosing governments (monarchies, autocracies, theocracies, etc.). It's advantage, as singular as it is, is that it creates an environment in which a government can be peacefully removed from power and another transitioned in its place. Of course most people are not equipped to judge which party's policies, which run the whole gamut from economics to foreign affairs to social policy, are better or worse. I doubt even most politicians are. Most people either just vote kneejerk for the "conservative" or the "liberal" or the "little guy" or the "wise-looking older fellow".
No, it's not about choosing leaders, it's about getting rid of them. That's where democracy, when coupled with a tradition of the rule of law, really shines.
Re:good thing the US is a REPUBLIC (Score:4, Interesting)
Some days the US is a republic, some days a democracy.
Here's how to approach this (Score:5, Interesting)
I have found it useful to let go of the pedantry (for lack of a better word) when judging other's speech based on the use of specific words. You clearly understand that smart can mean different things in different contexts, or in different people's minds. Rather than trying to figure out what this one specific person believes, ask yourself, does this person's general idea (i.e. "non-smart people aren't good at judging smart peoples' competency") hold up in most cases where you allow 'smart' to mean whatever you imagine it to mean?
You stated that you're somewhat gullible and not so 'smart' when it comes to people skills. (I'm still learning and am not a social butterfly myself.) Would it then follow that you are not so good at judging the competency of people who have excellent social skills? I submit you would be able to in general tell that a person is more competent than you, but you would have a hard time judging some nuances of just how good of a "player" someone is compared to others.
Likewise, one subject I have been trying to learn about lately is the economy. I know very little about it. My bullshit detector is top notch and honed from many years of active use. Most times I can spot dumb/misinformed people within minutes. But when it comes to a subject like this that I'm not too familiar with, I really have to put that thinking cap on to analyze what this person is saying and finally after a while decide if this person is either a complete moron talking totally out of his ass, or the second coming of Jesus in economist form.
Re:Not smart Enough? (Score:4, Interesting)
They also dont seem to teach the constitution either. Santorum constantly says "gods law" supersedes the US law.Is that rote incompetence or rote treason?
Re:Not smart Enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
Athens had a few cock-ups, but so has every other state. It's just that the eloquent (and somewhat egotistical) Socrates* hated the ignorant citizenry making decisions, and thought that it would be far better if people like himself were in charge. The Thirty Tyrants followed his suggestions, and took over; which led to Socrates being executed once their revolution had ended. Plato, a big fan of Socrates, then wrote the ultimate hatchet job on Democracy.
tl'dr - Athens screwed up a few times, so their system of government is seen as bad.
The best idea (and the one Socrates was least keen on) from Greek democracy was Sortition. It's essentially a jury system - a bunch of randomly selected citizens makes the decision. This is more representative than elections, and because the citizens on the jury know their vote will carry a lot of weight they have a big incentive to make a more educated decision (unlike most voters). They can also be given lots of resources (such as access to expert witnesses) to help make their decision; but they can rely on good-old common sense if they think the expert witnesses aren't putting the people's best interests first.
* Who never wrote anything down, so this is all arguable.
Re:Not smart Enough? (Score:2, Interesting)
"anyone currently receiving some form of "entitlement" should not get to vote"
Besides the problem that there are few people that fit in that category (housing loans, various tax breaks, and so on are all "entitlement"), those few allowed to vote could pressure the government into forcing $1 onto non-voters to exclude them from voting permanently?
As for incompetent drivers, we have pretty strict driving school rules in Germany. Besides memorizing all kinds of signs and rules (incl. physical questions like "how long a way is required to brake at speed X"), there's practical training under supervision where you likely encounter all typical scenarios.
Still, everyone feels that the entire road (minus 1) is full of idiots - and that's mostly true ("minus 1" is too optimistic).
Re:Not smart Enough? (Score:2, Interesting)
I would also love to see similar rules for reproducing....
Re:Not smart Enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
What I'd like to see is some kind of very tough civics test as a requirement for voting.
You raise some good points but the above is not really relevant. One can be uninterested in civics/politics while at the same time holding very valid points about an issue. Case in point, should the 'ruling' of the internet be left to the politicians/lawyers or to engineers who built it. If you exclude the latter because they are not involved 'enough' in politics, you'll break the internet. This applies to almost everything.
Wrong. Smart is the Problem. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not smart Enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
causality expounded:
Voting is tougher. In the early days of the USA, only a small minority could vote. You had to be white, male, and you had to own land at a time when most people didn't. Obviously the requirement that voters be white was plain racism, though at the time the same racism meant only whites would be educated. The exclusion of women meant that what we now call "big government" proposals had less support automatically (this has been proven and I don't care how anyone feels about facts - women tend to look for security from an external source and the government is only too happy to offer it). The exclusion of anyone who didn't own land tended to mean the voters were educated and prosperous enough that they could devote time to being active in politics.
Oh and the fact that Senators were appointed by the states to represent the states meant you had one part of the legislature that didn't have to run campaigns, didn't have to worry about the way the wind was blowing, and could actually vote their conscience. Changing that was a bad idea. It was an important check against the soundbite-driven (well really headline-driven, back then) world we know today.
Actually, I've been reading The Gilded Age recently. In it, Twain and Warner keep politics in the age of buccaneer capital squarely in their sights. One of the supporting characters is Senator Dilworthy, who is up for re-election. He goes back to his home state of Missouri to campaign for reelection in the state legislature, and winds up losing in a landslide, when his widespread bribery of legislators is exposed.
It's fiction, not history, but it's indicative of at least one of the problems with having Senators elected by state legislatures, rather than by direct vote of the people - it's a lot easier to bribe a few dozen than an entire electorate.
Twain and Warner likewise rip the lid off of Washington politics of the time, when Dilworthy and his allies use bribery, coercion, and blackmail to ram through a bill to purchase 1200 acres of Tennessee land - ostensibly to benefit "the Negro", but actually for the benefit of a poor, but well-connected Missouri family, and the network of lobbyists, politicians, and infuence-makers who will "administer" the fund created by the measure.
The book is a lot of fun - and quite enlightening. Politics, it seems, is ever the same. The details change, the corruption remains consistent.
What I'd like to see is some kind of very tough civics test as a requirement for voting. It should be as openly and transparently administered as possible, so that anyone who wants to study and learn could pass it but very few who didn't care to study would stand a chance. In addition, anyone currently receiving some form of "entitlement" should not get to vote because what they're going to vote for is not difficult to guess and this situation is too exploitable and too dangerous for our long-term survival. The last thing I would change is that all campaigns be publically funded, each candidate gets a very generous amount, and any other "contributions" are treasonous bribery resulting in a death penalty for the candidate and 20 years in prison for the one "contributing" the money.
With something like that, we could have a nation again.
Mmm ... the civics test I could see. It would ensure an at least nominally informed electorate. Forbidding anyone who receives any kind of "entitlement" is a whole other issue. In fact, I'm really glad you put the term in quotes, because I don't think you've thought that restriction through.
And I mean I don't think you've thought it through at all.
For instance, your proposal - if it were implemented across the board - would mean that no one who receives Social Security or Medicare benefits could vote. Is that what you had in mind? Because it's senior citizens who have the most experience with the consequences of voting, as well as the leisure time necessa
Re:Not smart Enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
A little humility would actually go a long way to addressing the problem. Unfortunately we have so many populist demagogues out there right now, telling people not to trust 'elites' (that is, anyone who knows more on a subject than the demagogue, which pretty much includes anyone who knows anything at all) that humility has been banished from our culture. Even amongst the educated, post-modernism teaches that all opinions have equal merit. The low-brow political bullshit seems to be a recurring feature of democracy, but the high-brow bullshit is new, and is often used to neutralize opposition to the low-brow stuff. This is what we have to get rid of.
So while there may be no such thing as Truth (with a capital T, the thing that ideologues and the clergy try to sell you) we need to bring that truth, you know, the sort of thing you need to get by everyday.
By the way, I'm obviously the best choice for leader, since I'm so intelligent that I have realized that I suck at everything, which obviously makes me the most competent person out there...