Might we consider an alternative political system called epistocracy.

Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 years, 9 months ago to Politics
78 comments | Share | Flag

I kinda like this idea...seems to fix some of the problems with democracies.

"Epistocracies retain the same institutions as representative democracies, including imposing liberal constitutional limits on power, bills of rights, checks and balances, elected representatives and judicial review. But while democracies give every citizen an equal right to vote, epistocracies apportion political power, by law, according to knowledge or competence."
SOURCE URL: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/professor-voting-should-be-restricted-those-knowledge


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 years, 9 months ago
    A republic with term limits for all, including the judiciary. That just requires a single amendment, or the extension of the 22nd amendment to include all elected and appointed Federal officials.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  nickursis 2 years, 9 months ago
      I'm for one term, 6 years, for all offices. If a person is skilled enough to fill it in the first place, then he needs no "experience" which is the lie they tell for "re-election". Re-election is where the corruption starts. The other way is to remove all donations and cash for elections and go to a simple budget method, where you are allocated a specific amount for each office, and that is it. How you spend it is up to you. Have a qualifying system, and that way they never need to beg.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 9 months ago
        It will take a revolution to accomplish that. The powerful in the Dark Center will never give it up voluntarily. They won't even let a third party on the debate stage.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  nickursis 2 years, 9 months ago
          Oh, no doubt, any effort to wrench power from their claws will end up with people going to jail on trumped up charges, or mysteriously ending up dead. That is the fear they have bred for the lat 30 years, that when any person brought it up, were labeled "conspiracy theorists". I believe a lot of the so called "theories", do have a basis in fact.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 2 years, 9 months ago
          Lets start with Trump. He is anti establishment, which is why he is hated so much by the media and even the repub party which he hijacked !!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 9 months ago
            Stop drinking the Trump kool-aid. Trump has been an insider since puberty and his actions prove him unacceptable for the office (just like all the other statist pols.) I know you are frightened of Hillary. The GOP has played on that fear for 30 years and Trump is doing the same, playing on your fear to get power for himself. We don't need a monarch or a politburo to expand the state. We need a free market, elimination of the tax on production, and someone who will veto all attempts to expand the fedgov.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 2 years, 9 months ago
              You are correct, but my fear of Hillary is not unfounded. She is telling us and promising us the statist things she is going to do, and how she will raise taxes to make me pay for it. Plus she has already taken bribes from companies and foreign countries- now she is committed to making their investment in her pay off- again at my expense. You are only surmising what Trump would do, but thats guessing.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 9 months ago
                Using reason based on trump's past actions and his statist proposals is not just guessing any more than your assumptions about Hitlery is. Both have been statist liberals in the past. Both have used government to crush others for personal gain. Both promise more government in their proposals. Neither is worthy of your respect or your vote.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 2 years, 9 months ago
                  That may be true. BUT, we are going to get one OR the other this time around. Hillary is far worse than Trump, just looking at her actions. We have tried the Obama fix to things, and look whats happened. Continuing that with Hillary will produce more of the same decline. What have you got to lose with Trump?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 9 months ago
                    I will not ever vote for the arguable lesser evil because the result of doing so is clear. Fear of one horrible unethical candidate is no reason to vote for another horrible unethical candidate. i will not consent to slavery.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 2 years, 9 months ago
                      I understand your position, and it is definitely an option. Hopefully enough people do NOT take this position and we escape the clutches of a Hillary presidency. It will be very bad for us all, including you.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
        That's an idea.

        I think the pres should only be 2 years with option of only one re-election based on defined performance criteria. This way...they can't do that much damage...we always have the recall...which is hard to get done...maybe it should be easier...especially if the electorate is Pre-Qualified.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  nickursis 2 years, 9 months ago
          I don't really think a President has the ability to do much damage, if the system functioned as designed. Clinton proved you could be a totally useless worm, do nothing, and be lauded forever. What they did behind the scenes at securing their power, that is what is scary.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 2 years, 9 months ago
            But look at what Obama did- Obamacare. Premiums went up from $153 to $409 per month for less coverage
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  nickursis 2 years, 9 months ago
              Yes, and go back and look at the record, the lies, the deciet, the fabrications, then Pelosi holding Congress hostage at Christmas until they caved. And who got prosecuted? No one. Looting and pillage right in front of their eyes, yet the sheeple will continue to bleat "We need Hillary", and then bitch and moan when they have no money and look for another government handout. It is a vicious cycle perpetuated to enable control. These people are the ultimate control freaks, and manipulators. Just as AR predicted and tried to tell the unwashed masses..who ignored her...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 2 years, 9 months ago
                Rand was very smart. Today we are so far down the track that we cant see the station any more that the train left from. Once the idea of taking from one to give to another was accepted, the rest is just arguing about from whom the money comes and to whom it goes.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 2 years, 9 months ago
    I would totally support an entrance exam for voting that requires one to correctly identify at least the candidates, their political affiliations, and several random questions about the Constitution. Failure to answer at least 80% correctly disqualifies your vote. The problem with voters today is that the majority of them are literally imbeciles: they know nothing about the Constitution and few even know what the candidates represent.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 2 years, 9 months ago
      Trouble is that the more educated people seem to be the evil socialists. The lower class people tend to rely on their human instincts more, and this has probably slowed down the advance of socialism somewhat.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 2 years, 9 months ago
        There is formal education and then there is understanding a Constitution system of government. They aren't necessarily inclusive (unless you graduated from Hillsdale College). Note that I didn't mandate any standard level of education, only that they be able to properly identify key parts of the political process they were involved in. They can get that from 15 minutes reading a primer.

        In the original days of the United States, Town Hall meetings were the social/political event where everyone gathered to discuss the welfare and organization of their areas. Those there actively participated in government: they knew the issues and vigorously debated them and as a result the People knew what they were doing. Nowadays, a Town Hall meeting is just a pulpit for politicians to come and politely listen to their constituents before going back to Washington and consulting with their lobbyists.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 2 years, 9 months ago
          I think that town halls in years past were comprised of people who had education somewhat equal to the issues at hand. Today, most people are really totally ignorant of the issues at hand (partly because those issues are much more complex than in earlier times).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 2 years, 9 months ago
            I don't think that the issues really are all that much more complex. The politicians tell us that they are complex because only with complex rules can they justify the continued growth of government and only with complex rules can they justify themselves in committing the very same crimes that the common man goes to jail for. Any time someone says that the issue is complex, they are attempting to justify different approaches and different outcomes based on who is involved - and their ideology.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 2 years, 9 months ago
              You may be right, but I think it depends on the issue. I am an engineer, and designing products today is much more complicated than in the past. There are just more side effects of each design decision, as products become more complex so as to offer more and more features to the consumer. Take washing machines for example. I just bought a new one after my old one had issues (22 years old). The old one had a mechanical timer. It ran through the cycles and stopped. Pretty simple.

              The new one has a computer with all sorts of sensors designed to make sure that if the cycle completes, it will have definitely cleaned the clothes without presenting any hazard to the people around it. In order to design this washer, one would need far more expertise in many areas to make the proper tradeoffs during the engineering and production process.

              Although this example doesnt translate to town hall decisions automatically, I do think that things today are more complicated and have grown past the knowledge and education of most of the people
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 2 years, 9 months ago
                Objects and inventions have become more complicated, yes. The basic moral arguments really haven't changed, however, just the circumstances in which they are presented.

                Here's a rather pointed example to consider. Around 800 AD began the rise of the modern (yes, that is tongue-in-cheek) Islamic state. They began to expand into and take over the Middle East. The city-state of Vienna, seeing this aggressive expansion and after fighting off an invasion fleet, saw that either they had to take the battle to Islam in their own lands or they would constantly be watching their coastlines. So they decided to invade the Holy Land. In order to get support, they presented the problem to the Pope so as to not only re-categorize the issue as a religious problem (which it was) but to get the powers-that-be (at the time) to not only sanction the action, but actively recruit for it. And so began the Crusades which lasted for the better part of 400 years, but had the direct effect of focusing the warfare in the Middle East so the rest of the world could go about its business.

                Now, a millenium later, we have nearly the exact same scenario playing out: an aggressive military expansion of Islam actively seeking to take over and expand to other parts of the world. Their ideology hasn't changed, nor have their tactics. It's just that 1000 years ago, Muslims were prevented from even entering many Western nations. Yes, now they have guns and pressure cookers instead of swords, but what else has really changed other than the tools?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 2 years, 9 months ago
                  Good history lesson actually. And today, we have Obama/Hillary actively allowing muslim "refugees" to not only freely come to the USA, but we pay to resettle them here. What craziness. They already infiltrated Germany and France, and look at whats happened there. The only one who will stop this is Trump .
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
                The issues today that make everything complicated is that, operating procedures, thinking and using technology and parts of our infrastructure has become unnecessarily convoluted instead of straight forward, simple stupid. There is Nothing like a Direct link to things. To do otherwise is like making decisions for us. Less control of the process.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  mminnick 2 years, 9 months ago
    Who determines what an educated individual is? I heard a term on a news/commentary show last week that tends to describe many of the "Educated" in this country It was I YI -- Intellectual Yet Idiot. I think it was Newt Gingrich that used it, but someone else coined the term.
    I think it describes a large majority of people now considering themselves to be educated and intellectual. I wouldn't trust them to make change at McDonalds.
    And yes I know the two skill are not the same.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 9 months ago
    It's like I've always said, voters should be tested for competence before they are allowed to vote and politicians should be tested for competence before they are allowed to run for office.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 2 years, 9 months ago
    " Further, it might well be that excluding or reducing the power of the least knowledgeable 75 per cent of white people produces better results for poor black women than democracy does."

    Nonsense. Any attempt to rationalize democracy is going to lead to the same result. Tyranny of the majority. The only answer is Jefferson's. A revolution each generation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 2 years, 9 months ago
      WE dont have democratic vote for CEO of McDonalds. If the government is simply administrative and following a strict constitution, we dont need to all vote on picking a president. His power is totally limited by the constitution, and he better be efficient and do things at lowest cost, LIKE the CEO of any other corporation
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
      I idea is to fix some of the problems with demonocracy.
      When our country was formed, only landholders, those invested voted.
      But the idea of having knowledge of the issues and our constitution is a good idea. Got to stop the ignorant entitled mob from voting for more stuff...I can not afford Their stuff.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 years, 9 months ago
        These days we have lots and lots of landowners who aren't real for really real landowners due to paying off the mortgages or "liens against property" held by the real for really real landowners.
        So I'd hate for owners (not necessarily CEOs) of banks and mortgage companies to be the majority of voters.
        Hmm, not to mention shareholders.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 2 years, 9 months ago
    problem in this day and age is...who judges who is competent to vote...democracies lead to oligarchies and fascism ...better a republic where the right to vote is based on where you work or not...particularly if you live off of welfare...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 2 years, 9 months ago
    Look at all the "knowledgeable" professors in colleges. They are mostly evil and terrible socialists. This system wont work.

    The system that will work is if the federal government is restricted to very few things like national defense, AND there is s stipulation in the constitution that forbids it from taking from one and giving to another- PERIOD. That way there is no "ruling party". Government workers from top down would simply be administrators of the limited functions of government. No Obamas, no Clintons, only managers who have proven themselves to be good at managing efficiently and inexpensively.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jconne 2 years, 9 months ago
    Highly recommended reading to understand how our political model came to be is a biography of the man and his ideas -- John Adams who wrote the book on the subject. "John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty" by C. Bradley Thompson. Adams researched the history of governments over two millennia comparing their architectures and outcomes. This led to our three-part (tripartite model) balance of power.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
      I saw a lecture by David Barton, wallbuilders.com , foremost authority on the constitution and our forefathers, on that, then I read: the original argument/federalist papers.

      Very enlightening and appreciative of the work Adams and our forefathers put into this endeavor.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 2 years, 9 months ago
    I always liked the one reason in the book Starship Troopers given for why they keep their "Military Democracy" as a form of government over all others.

    "Because it works satisfactorily."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  nickursis 2 years, 9 months ago
      Indeed. ST was an excellent discussion of why people need to have a commitment to whatever they are going to do, and a moral commitment to support it. Heinlein still had an elected government, you just had to prove you placed the society over your own self. It was not discriminatory, he made that clear from the get go. Everyone had the opportunity to become a citizen. Too bad we sell ours so cheaply, and get the results we do,.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jsw225 2 years, 9 months ago
        I never really cared about placing "the society over your own self", but that the right to vote was gated in some manner that people had to earn. And I did like that in Starship Troopers, as long as you didn't do any of the 31 crash landings (murder, hitting a superior...), they couldn't kick you out for any reason whatsoever.

        Like how a guy going through Infantry training refused to be rolled out for a crippling injury, and ended up becoming the cook.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo