In the realm of political thought, a provocative idea has emerged - should we lower the voting age to zero but weigh votes based on voters' understanding of relevant information? This concept was recently discussed by Robin Hanson:
"Can we extend voting to younger ages, but also weigh votes via informedness?" (Link to source)
That would combine the liberal and conservative approaches, such as from @jasonfbrennan.
Let me clarify - I'm not advocating for an immediate drop of the voting age to zero and the introduction of a test to rank votes. Instead, I'm more interested in questioning the roots of our current voting age limit. Is it a blanket assumption that older individuals possess more knowledge? That's certainly not always the case. So, why not consider testing knowledge directly, rather than using age as a loose proxy?
One might question, "Who gets to decide what it takes to be informed?" A fair counter, but couldn't the same be asked of our current system, "Who gets to decide how old is old enough to vote?"
This line of thought inevitably leads to another question: Should we judge individuals who are uninformed? It's not always their fault - they may have had poor educational opportunities or lack positive role models. This brings us to the crux of the matter: who bears responsibility if one's life is less than ideal? Traditional conservative thought posits that individuals should largely be held accountable for their own circumstances, under the belief that society functions more effectively when we assume the existence of free will.
The question I propose is this: "If you are uneducated, is that more a result of your circumstances or your age?" It seems unjust to penalize young, knowledgeable individuals by depriving them of their right to vote. In contrast, a person's lack of knowledge may be more attributable to their own choices than a child's youth is to their own.
Now, consider this: do we even need to vote for representatives anymore? In the age of the internet, we could potentially create an online platform for direct democracy. We could use a system similar to Wikipedia, where people propose costs, benefits, and risks for each policy. Everyone could post reasons to agree or disagree with the likelihood of these outcomes, allowing users to rank arguments. This dynamic could be continually updated as better arguments or new information emerge.
However, we should acknowledge that people are often resistant to change. Despite voicing a desire for progress, many people are inherently uncomfortable with it. But I firmly believe that reason will eventually triumph, though not without a certain amount of inevitable trial and error.
Creating a political party that operates on open cost/benefit/risk analysis might sound outlandish, but consider these points:
- There's no reason for the federal government to act without first conducting a cost-benefit analysis.
- There's no reason for such analysis to be hidden from public view.
- Wikipedia has demonstrated the efficacy of group efforts, provided quality is rewarded.
- There's no reason not to base our conclusions on the strength of the evidence.
As for the concern about implementing online democracy and using algorithms for decision making, consider the success of Wikipedia and Google. Both have demonstrated that algorithms can effectively analyze and prioritize quality content. The ultimate truth is that our conclusions should be based on the strength of the evidence.
In conclusion, I'm not a blind believer in technology as the panacea for all our woes. I have faith in reason and order. I believe that we can reason together, if we are organized. We need to lay out all the arguments, data, causal relationships, and scientific studies, link them, and vet them thoroughly. With the right tools, people can solve their problems. That's whyI'm a firm advocate for Direct Democracy.
In this potential new world of direct democracy, the question of who gets to decide what it takes to be informed could be answered fairly by the collective. We could implement a graded system, wherein if you match your parents' score, your vote is weighted 100%. Score twice as high? Your vote counts for 200%.
Now, some may argue that the use of algorithms in decision-making is a dangerous path. However, our current systems, such as the electoral college and primaries, already utilize algorithms. A direct democracy, even in its simplest form, cannot function without some sort of algorithmic assistance. In this context, I argue that an online democracy, utilizing algorithms and clear reasoning, could flourish, much like Wikipedia has.
Is there a potential for abuse in such a system? Certainly. However, Google has proven capable of outsmarting link farms, and Wikipedia has managed to maintain a high standard of quality through community efforts. I firmly believe in the strength of evidence and sound logic. We can identify and account for bias, we can discern causal relationships, we can dissect problems into individual components, and we can collect and analyze reasons to agree on the same page. Through the teachings of conflict resolution, we can focus on the interests of conflicting sides, rather than their positions, helping us navigate towards resolution.
To those who argue that reliance on technology is a fallacy, I would argue that I'm not placing blind faith in technology itself. I have faith in reason and order. I believe that we can reason together, if we organize. We need to lay out all the arguments, data, causal relationships, and scientific studies, link them, and vet them thoroughly. This approach requires a highly systematic and organized method to address our problems.
Ultimately, the goal is to equip people with the tools they need to solve problems. By bridging the gap between liberal and conservative approaches, as proposed by thinkers such as @jasonfbrennan, we could create a more balanced, fair, and effective political system. I believe that with the right tools and an openness to change, society can advance towards a more reasoned, more democratic future.
