> I think we should vote for people not because they share our views, which are likely based in ignorance, but because they demonstrate the ability to make informed decisions and come to reasonable compromises.
I like this model, but I think the rub is that rubric itself expresses a view that not everyone shares. It pushes the problem back one step, the disagreements become meta.
Any interest group can defect from the prisoner's dilemma where we all vote for tabula rasa rationalists, and instead choose the strategy of electing someone who pledges unwavering support.
They'd likely disagree with you that they don't know their interests and that they would be better off with smart generalists. And once some interest groups are getting unwavering support, then my bet is that strategy cannibalizes the "rationalist" strategy completely before long.
I'm not endorsing that outcome, I just think that's how things fall apart, and it's hard or impossible to create systems that prevent it.
Tyranny of the majority is incredibly tough. It's basically a sheep/goats problem, where you want majoritarian common sense to get through, but majoritarian selfishness to be stopped at the gate.
Federalism seems the best hedge against it so far, though even that seems to vary wildly in effectiveness. (e.g., Sometimes Jackson ignores Marshall.)
It could very well be that you're right, in which case we can chalk democracy up as just another failed model of governance. Way I see it, there are two options: continue to perpetuate the escalating arms race of irrationality, or try to change it.
One way might end badly, but the other certainly will.
Well, it might be the best of several flawed models.
Malcolm X's speech about the ballot and the bullet is worth hearing. Maybe democracy is only partly about rational policymaking, and mostly a pressure valve to prevent violent revolutions.
That's not to dismiss it, avoiding violent revolutions, even partly, is still a massive benefit for humanity that's hard to overrate.
I like this model, but I think the rub is that rubric itself expresses a view that not everyone shares. It pushes the problem back one step, the disagreements become meta.
Any interest group can defect from the prisoner's dilemma where we all vote for tabula rasa rationalists, and instead choose the strategy of electing someone who pledges unwavering support.
They'd likely disagree with you that they don't know their interests and that they would be better off with smart generalists. And once some interest groups are getting unwavering support, then my bet is that strategy cannibalizes the "rationalist" strategy completely before long.
I'm not endorsing that outcome, I just think that's how things fall apart, and it's hard or impossible to create systems that prevent it.
Tyranny of the majority is incredibly tough. It's basically a sheep/goats problem, where you want majoritarian common sense to get through, but majoritarian selfishness to be stopped at the gate.
Federalism seems the best hedge against it so far, though even that seems to vary wildly in effectiveness. (e.g., Sometimes Jackson ignores Marshall.)