Skip to main content


37943435425c4d024d3f363452816556-6.jpg?ts=1598491025
2021-04-07 14:50:23
Lots of right-leaning commentary on democracy recently has advocated for restricting the franchise to people who are “better” at making decisions, with very little — if any — attention paid to the vast social science literature on this topic. Some things worth thinking about:

https://twitter.com/leedrutman/status/1379792210208645123
One of the notions I've heard is that you should be able to allocate your vote to someone else - someone who has more interest in a particular issue and that you trust to make the right decision. In some respects, that's a form of "representative" democracy - but the notion would be that rather than your elected official voting on a huge range of issues on your behalf, you could have a larger group of people representing your interest to vote on niche issues (they could be proxies, with a tally of however many voters allocated to them). Politics is not just about voting though; there are also the aspects of discussing an issue and coming to compromises on solutions (that's an area that has broken down). The people discussing and coming to compromise obviously have to know something about the topic (experts, but also representatives of groups that might be impacted). The answer isn't to limit voting, but to create a system where your vote is channeled into a group of people who can properly discuss an issue rather than arguing about irrelevant side-issues and postures.