In elections, should the votes of more educated voters carry greater weight than those of the less educated? ESSAY

In elections, should the votes of more educated voters carry greater weight than those of the less educated? This essay’s main thesis is that weighted voting should not be implemented. Since 2016, when the incumbent i ...

In elections, should the votes of more educated voters carry greater weight than those of the less educated? This essay’s main thesis is that weighted voting should not be implemented. Since 2016, when the incumbent institution of liberal democracy brought two of the most recent political shocks in Brexit and the presidential election of Donald Trump, there has been a proliferation of prescriptions offered by the commentariat to overcome the democratic crises we face. Epistocracy – a system of government where votes are apportioned according to knowledge – is one such proposal under consideration. This essay shall focus on weighted voting, a particular form of epistocracy proposed by Jason Brennan (2016), whereby votes are weighted according to the political knowledge that each individual voter possesses, and argue that it should not be implemented. In this essay I shall firstly outline the main case for a weighted voting form of government, which is that it leads to better outcomes for society. I shall then raise two principal objections to the model; the first relates to the inherent process of an inequitable system and its ramifications for social injustice, while the second objection looks how the outcomes that a weighted voting system produces may not necessarily be ‘better’ for society. After examining possible counterarguments that uphold the benefits of incentivisation that come with weighted voting, I shall respond by arguing that there is no guarantee that those in possession of greater political knowledge will demonstrate unbiased decision-making in their voting, and shall then contend that theories of incentivisation ignore the perennial social inequalities that the working class are often born into. The traditional argument for weighted voting is that it should lead to better decisions. Plato, one of the first proponents of epistocracy, believed that political authority should lie in the hands of the most knowledgeable members of society (Steinbauer, 2014). Plato contended that only philosophers possessed true knowledge as opposed to the mere beliefs and opinions held by the rest of the people. Plato uses the Ship of State metaphor to expose the instability of democratic rule: he asks us to imagine a ship where all those on-board feel entitled to claim the helm. Among the group, the captain is the only capable navigator, but does not possess the persuasive power to command the ship. Rather, it is the erratic, insatiable crew members who shout the loudest in their factions and make the boldest claim to rule, despite having no knowledge of navigation whatsoever. As a result, discipline is replaced with chaos and what ensues is a wasteful drunken jaunt. The message of Plato’s allegory is clear: ruling is a skill, much like that of navigation. Therefore, both on the ship and in society as a whole, governance should be in the hands of experts. The political scientist Jason Brennan (2016) is a modern champion of this school of thought, and argues for a weighted voting system whereby outcomes reflect ‘what the informed public would want, rather than what the uninformed public in fact wants’ (para. 20). I shall now explore two principal objections to this viewpoint. The first issue to raise with weighted voting is the inherent inequality of the system. Through affording greater weight to the votes of those who possess more knowledge, weighted voting can perpetuate social injustice. There is currently much disagreement as to what qualifies an individual to possess a greater weight to their vote. Certain epistemic standards, such as the possession of a university degree, are often ‘disproportionately the privilege of members of certain races, classes, and (formerly) genders’ (Estlund, 2003, p. 62). It is hardly an exaggeration to note that if the working class or minority ethnic groups were underrepresented in the voting demographics of a society, then a result of this could be the suppression of their interests. Moreover, establishing a weighted voting system in countries where social mobility rates are already low risks the reinforcement of a glass ceiling that would leave behind a significant proportion of the country’s disadvantaged and deprive them of the platform to express their views. The second objection is that weighted voting rests upon the assumption that that the opinions of the educated are more conducive to better outcomes for society. A direct consequence of this is that the knowledge and opinions offered by the working class are underappreciated. Brennan (2016) even asserts that most low-income black women would fail a knowledge test that would qualify one to vote. Nevertheless, ironically it was the very same cleavage in society (black and female voters) that was most opposed to the election of Donald Trump in 2016 (Crain, 2016), a result that Brennan himself described as a ‘victory of the uninformed’ (para. 16). Moreover, it is an error to steadfastly believe that political knowledge should be equated with good judgment; the British government’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 serves as a reminder that policymaking by experts does not necessarily produce successful outcomes. The argument for weighted voting overlooks the fact that the beliefs underpinning a political decision may often appeal more to emotions rather than knowledge; in such cases, an educated opinion does not necessarily entail better decision-making.