Against Democracy

Key Takeaways

1. Democracy's Promise vs. Reality: A Critical Look

Politics isn’t a poem, I thought, and under those ideal conditions, we’d want to be anarchists, not democrats.

Ideal vs. Real: Many philosophical arguments for democracy are based on idealized conditions that bear little resemblance to real-world politics. The author argues that we should focus on the actual consequences of different forms of government, not just their symbolic value.

• Philosophers often romanticize politics, seeing it as a force for unity and civic virtue.
• In reality, politics often divides, corrupts, and creates civic enemies.
• The author challenges the notion that political participation inherently ennobles citizens.

The Decline of Participation: The author views the decline in political engagement as a positive trend, suggesting that ideally, politics should occupy only a small portion of people's attention.

• Many lament falling voter turnout, but the author sees it as a sign that people are prioritizing other aspects of life.
• The goal should be to minimize political involvement, not maximize it.
• Ideally, people would focus on art, culture, and personal pursuits rather than politics.

Three Types of Citizens: The author introduces three archetypes: hobbits (apathetic and ignorant), hooligans (biased and zealous), and vulcans (rational and informed).

• Most citizens fall into the hobbit or hooligan categories.
• The goal of political engagement should be to transform hobbits into vulcans, but this is rarely the case.
• The author argues that political participation often turns hobbits into hooligans.

2. The Myth of the Informed Voter: Ignorance is Not Bliss

The sheer depth of most individual voters’ ignorance is shocking to many observers not familiar with the research.

Widespread Political Ignorance: The author presents extensive evidence that most citizens, including voters, have a shockingly low level of political knowledge.

• Voters often cannot identify their congressional representatives or which party controls Congress.
• They are unaware of major policy changes and have a poor understanding of basic economics and political science.
• Non-voters tend to be even more ignorant than voters.

The Limits of Surveys: Standard surveys of voter knowledge often overstate how much people know.

• Multiple-choice tests allow for guessing, and surveys often ask easy questions.
• Surveys rarely test for degrees of knowledge or understanding of complex issues.
• Voters often lack the social scientific knowledge needed to evaluate policy proposals.

Rational Ignorance: The author explains that voters are rationally ignorant because the costs of acquiring political information outweigh the benefits.

• Individual votes have a vanishingly small chance of making a difference.
• People have little incentive to invest time and effort in becoming informed about politics.
• This is why some people are well-informed: they have other incentives, such as a love of politics or a desire to fit in.

3. Political Participation: Corrupting, Not Ennobling

Most common forms of political engagement not only fail to educate or ennoble us but also tend to stultify and corrupt us.

Mill's Hypothesis vs. Schumpeter's Complaint: The author contrasts Mill's belief that political participation ennobles citizens with Schumpeter's view that it makes them more primitive.

• Mill hoped that political engagement would make people smarter and more concerned about the common good.
• Schumpeter argued that citizens become less rational when they enter the political field.
• The author argues that Schumpeter's view is closer to the truth.

The Failure of Deliberative Democracy: The author critiques the idea that political deliberation will enlighten citizens.

• Deliberative democrats believe that organized political discussion will lead to better outcomes.
• However, empirical evidence shows that deliberation often exacerbates biases and leads to greater conflict.
• People tend to engage in motivated reasoning, seeking out information that confirms their existing views.

Deliberation as a Corrupting Force: The author argues that deliberation often makes people worse, not better.

• People tend to become more extreme in their views after deliberating with like-minded individuals.
• Deliberation often leads to emotionalism and hysteria, rather than rational discourse.
• Exposure to contrary viewpoints can make people apathetic and less likely to participate.

4. The Illusion of Empowerment: Individual Power in a Collective System

The right to vote is not like other civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, religion, or association.

The Consent Argument: The author refutes the idea that democracy is justified because it rests on the consent of the governed.

• Real-world political systems do not meet the conditions for genuine consent.
• Governments impose rules and regulations regardless of individual consent.
• Voting does not signify informed consent, as most voters lack the necessary knowledge.

The Outcomes Argument: The author argues that political participation does not empower individuals to advance their interests.

• Individual votes have almost no impact on political outcomes.
• Most citizens have little influence over government policy.
• Political participation is more about expressing group identity than achieving individual goals.

The Autonomy Argument: The author challenges the idea that political participation is essential for personal autonomy.

• Political decisions are made collectively, not individually.
• Individual votes have little impact on the laws and policies that govern people's lives.
• Political participation does not give individuals meaningful control over their circumstances.

5. Democracy as a Symbol: Expressive Value vs. Practicality

Democracy is nothing more than a hammer. If we can find a better hammer, we should use it.

The Semiotic Argument: The author critiques the idea that democracy is valuable because of what it expresses or symbolizes.

• Some argue that democracy expresses the equal worth of all citizens.
• Others claim that democracy is necessary for self-respect and social recognition.
• The author argues that these symbolic arguments fail to show that democratic rights have any real value.

The Problem of Unequal Power: The author argues that unequal political power is not inherently unjust.

• Past political inequality was often based on morally arbitrary reasons.
• However, there may be good reasons to restrict or reduce some citizens' political power.
• Competence may be a valid basis for distributing political power.

The Limits of Symbolic Arguments: The author argues that symbolic arguments for democracy are often based on contingent social constructs.

• The meaning we attach to political rights is not fixed or essential.
• We can change our cultural practices and beliefs about what expresses respect.
• If epistocracy produces better results, we should be willing to revise our views about the symbolic value of democracy.

6. The Competence Principle: A Presumptive Right to Competent Governance

When some citizens are morally unreasonable, ignorant, or incompetent about politics, this justifies not permitting them to exercise political authority over others.

The Competence Principle: The author introduces the competence principle, which states that high-stakes political decisions should be made competently and in good faith.

• Political decisions have a higher justificatory burden than personal decisions.
• It is unjust to impose incompetently made decisions on innocent people.
• The right to vote is not like other civil liberties; it is a right to exercise power over others.

Juries and Competence: The author uses the example of jury trials to illustrate the importance of competence in decision-making.

• Defendants have a right to a competent jury that acts in good faith.
• Jury decisions made in ignorance, irrationality, or bad faith lack legitimacy and authority.
• The same principle should apply to political decision-making.

The Competence Principle and Democracy: The author argues that universal suffrage often violates the competence principle.

• Democratic electorates are often ignorant, irrational, and misinformed.
• This means that many democratic decisions are made incompetently.
• The competence principle provides a presumptive reason to favor epistocracy over democracy.

7. Challenging Democratic Competence: Theorems and Realities

The two simplest truths I know about the distribution of political information in modern electorates are that the mean is low and the variance is high.

The Miracle of Aggregation: The author critiques the idea that large democracies can make smart decisions even if most voters are ignorant.

• The miracle of aggregation theorem relies on the assumption that errors are randomly distributed.
• However, voters often make systematic errors, which means that their errors do not cancel out.
• Low-information voters have systematically different preferences from high-information voters.

Condorcet's Jury Theorem: The author argues that Condorcet's jury theorem does not support democracy.

• The theorem assumes that voters are more likely than not to be correct.
• However, empirical evidence suggests that voters are often more likely to be wrong than right.
• If voters are systematically wrong, the theorem implies that democracy will make the wrong choice.

The Hong-Page Theorem: The author challenges the idea that cognitive diversity makes democracy smart.

• The Hong-Page theorem assumes that decision-makers have diverse and sophisticated models of the world.
• However, most voters lack sophisticated models and are often biased and irrational.
• The theorem does not imply that universal participation is always better than more limited participation.

8. Epistocracy: Exploring Alternatives to Democracy

Epistocracy means the rule of the knowledgeable.

Defining Epistocracy: The author defines epistocracy as a political regime in which political power is formally distributed according to competence, skill, and the good faith to act on that skill.

• Epistocracy is not necessarily about philosopher kings or a guardian class.
• There are many possible forms of epistocracy, including restricted suffrage, plural voting, and epistocratic veto.
• The choice between democracy and epistocracy is ultimately instrumental.

Forms of Epistocracy: The author outlines various ways to instantiate epistocracy.

• Restricted suffrage: Only citizens who pass a competence test can vote.
• Plural voting: Some citizens have additional votes based on their competence.
• Enfranchisement lottery: Citizens are randomly selected to become prevoters, who can then earn the right to vote.
• Epistocratic veto: An epistocratic body has the right to veto laws passed by a democratic body.
• Weighted voting: Votes are weighted based on objective political knowledge.

The Demographic Objection: The author addresses the concern that epistocracy will disproportionately exclude disadvantaged groups.

• Political knowledge is not evenly spread among all demographic groups.
• However, this does not mean that epistocracy is inherently unjust.
• The goal is to produce better outcomes, not to express disrespect for any group.

9. Politics as a Source of Conflict: The Problem of Civic Enemies

The problem isn’t merely that we’re biased and tribalistic, that we tend to hate people who disagree with us just because they disagree.

Politics as a Zero-Sum Game: The author argues that politics creates adversarial relationships, making us situational enemies.

• Political decisions are often imposed involuntarily through violence.
• Political choices are constrained and monopolistic, leaving little room for individual preferences.
• This creates a system of conflict, where one side's gain is often another side's loss.

The Problem of Incompetence: The author argues that the incompetence of most voters gives us reason to despise them.

• Most voters are ignorant, irrational, and misinformed.
• They make decisions that impose undue risk on others.
• This creates a situation where we have grounds to resent our fellow citizens.

The Need to Minimize Politics: The author concludes that we should minimize our involvement in politics and expand the scope of civil society.

• Politics tends to corrupt and stultify us, making us worse people.
• It creates genuine grounds for conflict and resentment.
• We should strive to create a society where politics plays a smaller role in our lives.

Last updated: March 21, 2025

Report Issue