Read on Twitter
on a purely tactical level, epistocracy proponents should probably endorse turnout-boosting efforts like vote-by-mail or election day holidays
consider (thread) https://twitter.com/antirobust/status/1244375817758445568">https://twitter.com/antirobus...
consider (thread) https://twitter.com/antirobust/status/1244375817758445568">https://twitter.com/antirobus...
a big barrier to epistocracy is the (mostly false, imo) impression that it is a bad-faith smokescreen for partisan & racially-discriminatory efforts to constrain voting from Black & poor citizens (the partisan & racial dimensions are necessarily intertwined)
given the substance of epistocracy (principled IQ & education discrimination in vote weight, suffrage & ballot access), its overlap w/ historic & ongoing partisan/racial power politics is extensive
epistocrats should grapple with this, not conspicuously ignore it
epistocrats should grapple with this, not conspicuously ignore it
it might be small, but there is a market for left- or centrist- mood-affiliated epistocracy
by not clearly differentiating principled epistocracy from status quo partisan/racial power politics, you undermine its appeal & intellectual seriousness
by not clearly differentiating principled epistocracy from status quo partisan/racial power politics, you undermine its appeal & intellectual seriousness
if epistocrats sincerely aspire to a new democratic paradigm, they shouldn& #39;t defend existing partisan/racial voting inequalities as a desirable "imperfect" version of what they want — they should strive to build their vision from a position of intellectual purity
for example, if being a felon is highly correlated w/ traits epistocracy seeks to downweight—lack of education, low IQ etc—they shouldn& #39;t defend permanent felon disenfranchisement on those grounds
they should militate *against it*, while strongly arguing for their ed & IQ rules
they should militate *against it*, while strongly arguing for their ed & IQ rules
for a blue-sky intellectual vision, epistocracy is curiously strategic in its lack of engagement in existing, real-world deviations from fully-universal voting
instead of vigorously arguing for their ideal framework, where e.g. ballot access is reoriented according to new principles, epistocrats quietly defend existing inequalities that produce some overlapping outcomes but are grounded in wildly different moral justifications
to reiterate, this caginess undermines epistocracy& #39;s credibility & limits its appeal
eg on ballot access, focusing solely on ways to *constrain* low-ed, low-IQ turnout ignores a whole other side of the equation: *boosting or enabling* high-ed, high-IQ turnout
eg on ballot access, focusing solely on ways to *constrain* low-ed, low-IQ turnout ignores a whole other side of the equation: *boosting or enabling* high-ed, high-IQ turnout
epistocracy seeks to improve outcomes by raising avg voter quality via mechanistic institutional reforms
but this can be achieved in many ways. adopting more tools & rhetoric from universalist conceptions of democracy would go a long way towards broadening its appeal imo
but this can be achieved in many ways. adopting more tools & rhetoric from universalist conceptions of democracy would go a long way towards broadening its appeal imo
(note: this thread is mostly in response to some private conversations; the actual work of Jason Brennan & gang are significantly better on all these points, although i think the overall critique is valid)
