Every election cycle, I scratch my head and wonder blasphemously whether “one man, one vote” makes sense.
Surveys routinely reveal that a majority of Americans have marginal knowledge of government, politics, and political issues.
Try this: ask folks to explain the difference between the Federal deficit and the Federal debt … ask them where the money that funds, say unemployment benefits, comes from.
Jason Brennan is a rare breed … a libertarian business prof at Georgetown.
His research is at the nexus of ethics and politics.
He wrote an insightful book called The Ethics of Voting that I consider a classic.
The essence of Jason’s argument is that all adult citizens have the right to vote … but that they shouldn’t exercise that right unless they are informed, rational, and aiming for the common good.
Let’s drill down on that conclusion…
===============
More specifically, Prof. Brennan argues:
“If a citizen has a right to vote, this means at minimum that she ought to be permitted to vote — no one should stop her or deprive her of the vote — and that her vote must be counted.
However, if citizens do vote, they must vote well, on the basis of sound evidence for what is likely to promote the common good.
That is, in general, they must vote for the common good rather than for narrow self-interest.
Citizens who lack the motive, knowledge, rationality, or ability to vote well should abstain from voting.
Some voters are well informed about what candidates are likely to do.
They know what policies candidates endorse and whether the candidates are sincere.
They know the track records and general trends of different political parties.
Other voters are ignorant of such things.
Another way voters vary is in their degree of rationality .
Some voters are scrupulously rational, while others are irrational.
Some have patently stupid beliefs.
“[Some citizens] are politically engaged, but they are nonetheless often ignorant of or misinformed about the relevant facts or, worse, are simply irrational.
Though they intend to promote the common good, they all too often lack sufficient evidence to justify the policies they advocate.
When they do vote, I argue, they pollute democracy with their votes and make it more likely that we will have to suffer from bad governance.”
* * * * *
Ken’s Take: An interesting perspective that has been constantly on my mind during this election cycle.
At least read the sample chapter … book is available in paperback at Amazon
============
Follow on Twitter @KenHoma
#HomaFiles
The Homa Files 
November 15, 2020 at 12:32 pm |
Having served five 16-hour days recently as an election judge, exposed to the voting public in a new way to me (since I generally early-vote, in case of travel), I often had thoughts similar to those espoused by this author. But the danger is that such proponents of informed-only voting usually reserve to those similarly-qualified as themselves the appropriate judgment to discern who would qualify. That’s the kind of distrust of those who are “other” to ourselves (like the sentiments if our Founding Fathers) that brought about the Electoral College, which seeks to disenfranchised so many of our nation’s voters.