Demographic Objections to Epistocracy: A Generalization

IF 3.3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Philosophy & Public Affairs Pub Date : 2021-08-18 DOI:10.1111/papa.12199
Sean Ingham, David Wiens
{"title":"Demographic Objections to Epistocracy: A Generalization","authors":"Sean Ingham, David Wiens","doi":"10.1111/papa.12199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Several scholars have recently entertained proposals for “epistocracy,” a political regime in which decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of a society’s most informed and competent citizens. These proposals rest on the claim that we can expect better political outcomes if we exclude incompetent citizens from participating in political decisions because competent voters are more likely to vote “correctly” than incompetent voters. We develop what we call the objection from selection bias to epistocracy: a procedure that selects voters on the basis of their observed competence—as epistocracy does—will often be “biased” in the sense that competent voters will be, on average, more likely than incompetent voters to possess certain attributes that reduce the probability of voting correctly. Our objection generalizes the “demographic objection” discussed in previous literature, showing that the range of realistic scenarios in which epistocracy is vulnerable to selection bias is substantially broader than previous discussions appreciate. Our discussion also shows that previous discussions have obscured the force of the threat of selection bias. Since we lack reasons to believe that epistocratic proposals can avoid selection bias, we have no reason to seriously entertain epistocracy as a practical proposal.","PeriodicalId":47999,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Public Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/papa.12199","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy & Public Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12199","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Several scholars have recently entertained proposals for “epistocracy,” a political regime in which decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of a society’s most informed and competent citizens. These proposals rest on the claim that we can expect better political outcomes if we exclude incompetent citizens from participating in political decisions because competent voters are more likely to vote “correctly” than incompetent voters. We develop what we call the objection from selection bias to epistocracy: a procedure that selects voters on the basis of their observed competence—as epistocracy does—will often be “biased” in the sense that competent voters will be, on average, more likely than incompetent voters to possess certain attributes that reduce the probability of voting correctly. Our objection generalizes the “demographic objection” discussed in previous literature, showing that the range of realistic scenarios in which epistocracy is vulnerable to selection bias is substantially broader than previous discussions appreciate. Our discussion also shows that previous discussions have obscured the force of the threat of selection bias. Since we lack reasons to believe that epistocratic proposals can avoid selection bias, we have no reason to seriously entertain epistocracy as a practical proposal.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对认识论的人口学反对:一个概括
一些学者最近提出了“书信政治”的建议,这是一种决策权集中在社会最知情、最有能力的公民手中的政治制度。这些提案的基础是,如果我们将不称职的公民排除在政治决策之外,我们可以期待更好的政治结果,因为称职的选民比不称职的选民更有可能“正确”投票。我们发展了我们所说的从选择偏见到书信政治的反对意见:一种根据观察到的能力来选择选民的程序——就像书信政治一样——通常会“有偏见”,因为平均而言,有能力的选民比没有能力的选民更有可能拥有某些属性,从而降低正确投票的概率。我们的反对意见概括了以前文献中讨论的“人口统计学反对意见”,表明书信政治容易受到选择偏见影响的现实场景的范围比以前的讨论所理解的要广泛得多。我们的讨论还表明,以前的讨论掩盖了选择偏见威胁的力量。既然我们没有理由相信书信制度的建议可以避免选择偏见,我们就没有理由认真对待书信制度作为一种切实可行的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
Kolodny Against Hierarchy Universal Statism Individuality as Difference Moral Understanding Between You and Me The Role of Civility in Political Disobedience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1