The Problem with Democracy

Winston Churchill famously said that democracy was the worst possible form of government—until you consider all the others.

It is not, objectively, a good system. Most people are not wise. Realistically, leaving decisions to the average person will lead to only average results. 

Plato, Confucius, and the American Progressives argued instead for rule by experts, educated to the role. But this runs into the problem of who polices the police; a self-appointed clique with their own vested interests can take over; they can skew the standards to control membership. We see the results in the modern university, or in the PRC: not great.

In a way, democracy really just works as a check and a balance: the experts, the clerisy, inevitably actually control the levers of power. A democratic vote every few years does something to keep them in line.

But can we do better? How about some objective metric to limit the franchise? IQ tests are supposed to be pretty objective and tamper-proof; that’s one option. But it does not sound just: what about the principle of “no taxation without representation”? If a man or woman is paying taxes, they have a natural right to vote on how that money is spent.

It makes sense to use IQ testing to choose immigrants. Not education or income, as is often now done—that favors the elites from poorer countries, where many or most people cannot afford much education. This means we are not really selecting the best. Moreover, poorer countries are generally poor because of a corrupt ruling class. And using these criteria means we are importing that very corruption. IQ by contrast is a decent objective measure of future potential, and the ability to succeed and to contribute. And to vote wisely.

As for current citizens, let’s flip the script on “no taxation without representation.” There is a logical corollary: no representation without taxation. Only those whose tax returns show they are net contributors to the public accounts might get to vote. This is some measure of intelligence, and of sound judgement. 

This would also strengthen the check on the expert clique. Those whose income comes from government would not be eligible to vote by this standard. Allowing them to do so is unfair: they are in effect voting on their own performance.

There is, perhaps, also a necessary tweak to this. We have a problem of depopulation: women are not having children. And basing the vote on income gives them some further incentive to pursue career instead of childrearing. Not good. So we might add an alternative criterion for the vote: having borne or raised two or more children, without resort to public assistance. This, like paying taxes, is a contribution to society at large, and implies a commitment to it.

I suspect this might produce at least marginally better government. And this matters, not just to the quality of life of citizens, but to the future of the nation.