Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-rkzlw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-27T23:32:59.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Finding the Epistocrats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2022

Brian Kogelmann Open the ORCID record for Brian Kogelmann [Opens in a new window]
Brian Kogelmann*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
*
Email: bkogel89@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Concerned about widespread incompetence among voters in democratic societies, epistocrats propose quasi-democratic electoral systems that amplify the voices of competent voters while silencing (or perhaps just subduing) the voices of those deemed incompetent. In order to amplify the voices of the competent we first need to know what counts as political competence, and then we need a way of identifying those who possess the relevant characteristics. After developing an account of what it means to be politically competent, I argue that there is no way for the epistocrat to identify such persons. Therefore, epistocracy cannot be implemented.

Keywords

Epistocracydemocracyvoter ignorancevoter competenceJason Brennan

Information

Type
Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2023 , pp. 497 - 512
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ahlstrom-Vij, K. (2022). ‘The Case for Modelled Democracy.’ Episteme 19, 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. (2011). ‘Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony.’ Episteme 8, 144–64.10.3366/epi.2011.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, G. and Lomasky, L. (1997). Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, J. (2011). ‘The Right to a Competent Electorate.’ Philosophical Quarterly 61, 700–24.10.1111/j.1467-9213.2011.699.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, J. (2016). Against Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, J. (2020). ‘The Ethics and Rationality of Voting.’ In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/voting/.Google Scholar
Brinkmann, M. (2018). ‘The Concept of Political Competence.’ Critical Review 30, 163–93.10.1080/08913811.2018.1572974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, B. (2006). ‘The Myth of the Rational Voter.’ Cato Unbound: A Journal of Debate. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/05/bryan-caplan/myth-rational-voter.Google Scholar
Cholbi, M. (2007). ‘Moral Expertise and the Credentials Problem.’ Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10, 323–34.10.1007/s10677-007-9071-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, T. (2006). ‘Democracy.’ In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/democracy/.Google Scholar
Conover, P.J., Feldman, S. and Knight, K. (1987). ‘The Personal and Political Underpinnings of Economic Forecasts.’ American Journal of Political Science 31, 559–83.10.2307/2111283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feddersen, T., Gailmard, S. and Sandroni, A. (2009). ‘Moral Bias in Large Elections: Theory and Experimental Evidence.’ American Political Science Review 103, 175–92.10.1017/S0003055409090224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, J. (2017). ‘The Problem of Epistocratic Identification and the (Possibly) Dysfunctional Division of Epistemic Labor.’ Critical Review 29, 293–327.10.1080/08913811.2017.1410979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, C.L. (2000). ‘The Dual Influence of Self-Interest and Societal Interest in Public Opinion.’ Political Research Quarterly 53, 37–62.10.1177/106591290005300102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, C.L. and García-Monet, P.A. (1997). ‘The Relationship Between Personal and National Concerns in Public Perceptions About the Economy.’ Political Research Quarterly 50, 317–42.10.1177/106591299705000204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, A. (2022). ‘Is Epistocracy Irrational?’ Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 21, 251–81.10.26556/jesp.v21i2.1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. (2001). ‘Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63, 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannon, M. (2022). ‘Are Knowledgeable Voters Better Voters?’ Politics, Philosophy & Economics 21, 29–54.10.1177/1470594X211065080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harwood, R. (2008). ‘More Votes for Ph.D.'s.’ Journal of Social Philosophy 29, 129–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, M. (2012). ‘How to Identify Moral Experts? An Application of Goldman's Criteria for Expert Identification to the Domain of Morality.’ Analyse and Kritik 34, 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, A. (2018). ‘Limited Epistocracy and Political Inclusion.’ Episteme 15, 412–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, D.R. and Kiewiet, D.R. (1979). ‘Economic Discontent and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Grievances and Collective Economic Judgments in Congressional Voting.’ American Journal of Political Science 23, 495–527.10.2307/2111027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klocksiem, J. (2019). ‘Epistocracy is a Wolf in Wolf's Clothing.’ Journal of Ethics 23, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogelmann, B. (2021 a). ‘Secrecy and Transparency in Political Philosophy.’ Philosophy Compass 16, e12733.10.1111/phc3.12733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogelmann, B. (2021 b). Secret Government: The Pathologies of Publicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Guerra, C. (2014). Democracy and Disenfranchisement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manor, A. (2022). ‘Polycentric Limited Epistocracy: Political Expertise and the Wiki-Model.’ Episteme 19, 1–20.10.1017/epi.2020.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J.S. (2015). On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and Other Essays, edited by Philip, M. and Rosen, F.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moraro, P. (2018). ‘Against Epistocracy.’ Social Theory and Practice 44, 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, K. and Grange, C. (2021). ‘Large Racial Turnout Gap Persisted in 2020 Election.’ Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/large-racial-turnout-gap-persisted-2020-election.Google Scholar
Mulligan, T. (2018). ‘Plural Voting for the Twenty-First Century.’ Philosophical Quarterly 68, 286–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riaz, A. (2021). ‘How to Identify Moral Experts.’ Journal of Ethics 25, 123–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwitzgebel, E. (2013). ‘Are Ethicists Any More Likely to Pay Their Registration Fees at Professional Meetings?’ Economics & Philosophy 29, 371–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwitzgebel, E. and Rust, J. (2014). ‘The Moral Behavior of Ethics Professors: Relationships among Self-Reported Behavior, Expressed Normative Attitude, and Directly Observed Behavior.’ Philosophical Psychology 27, 293–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, D.O. and Citrin, J. (1982). Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sears, D.O. and Lau, R.R. (1983). ‘Inducing Apparently Self-Interested Political Preferences.’ American Journal of Political Science 27, 223–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, D.O., Hensler, C.P. and Speer, L.K. (1979). ‘Whites’ Opposition to ‘Busing’: Self-Interest or Symbolic Politics?’ American Political Science Review 73, 369–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, D.O., Lau, R.R., Tyler, T.R. and Allen, H.M. Jr. (1980). ‘Self-Interest vs. Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting.’ American Political Science Review 74, 670–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar