Class 9: epistocracy

Robert Dhal on epistocracy

• Dahl: democracy is based on political equality — citizens must be treated as political equals

• Citizens as rulers – democracy assumes citizens are capable of forming and expressing preferences

• No competence threshold – Dahl rejects excluding citizens based on intelligence or knowledge

• Risk of epistocracy – limiting participation violates core democratic equality, even if outcomes improve

• Better solution – improve institutions and participation, not restrict the franchise

Strong conceptions of competence

• Strong competence: citizens should understand the common good, not just private interests

• Civic virtue required – informed, rational, and public-spirited citizens

• High threshold – very few citizens meet this standard in reality

• Used to justify elitism – supports arguments for rule by the “best” (e.g. Plato, epistocracy)

Narrow/ weak conception of competence

• Weak competence: citizens need only be “good enough” to understand their own interests

• No need for civic virtue – self-interest is sufficient

• Aggregation logic – collective decisions emerge through voting, not expertise

• Democracy-friendly – avoids elitism and supports political equality

Jason Brennan’s epistocracy

• Democracy as a tool – judge systems by outcomes, not equality

• Epistocracy – give more political power to the knowledgeable

• Limit universal suffrage – restrict or weight votes by competence

• Correct voter bias – reduce ignorance and motivated reasoning

• Paternalistic logic – experts decide what citizens would choose if fully informed

Epistocracy vs technocracy

Technocracy

• Experts implement policies

• Goals set democratically

• Experts advise, not rule

Epistocracy

• Epistemic elites shape or override decisions

• Knowledge justifies greater political power

• Seeks to correct:

  • cognitive biases

  • motivated reasoning

Brennan’s strongest claims

• No right to an equal vote – political equality is not morally fundamental

• Right to competent governance – citizens are entitled to good decisions, not fair procedures

• Ignorant voting is harmful – bad votes impose costs on others

• Epistocratic veto – experts may justifiably override democratic decisions

• Political paternalism – correcting voters is like correcting harmful personal choices

Variants of epistocracy (Malcolm)

• Restricted suffrage – only politically knowledgeable citizens may vote

• Plural voting – all may vote, but knowledgeable citizens get more votes

• Weighted voting – votes are weighted by competence or education

• Epistocratic veto – expert body can veto democratic decisions

• Expert filtering / oracle model – experts filter or assess policies to approximate informed public judgment

Inclusion instead of exclusion- Lopez-Guerra

Three arguments:

1.        No strong evidence that inclusion worsens outcomes

2.        Fairness requires inclusion of those with franchise capacity

3.        Existing exclusions are over-exclusive

what is franchise capacity?

Franchise capacity: the ability to understand that one is voting, that the vote has political consequences, and to express a preference, even if imperfectly.

Two types of injustice

• Commodity-dependent injustice: injustice from being denied the practical benefits of voting (protecting interests, influencing outcomes).

• Commodity-independent injustice: injustice from being denied equal status and recognition as a full member of the political community.