Universal suffrage = Universal incompetence?

The election in 2008 was anticipated to have record turnout due to the historic nature of a certain candidate having a shot at he Presidency (SPOILER: It's cause he's Hawaiian). Like any responsible citizen I took some time to research both the candidates and determine which one would be a better leader for our nation.  Naturally, being a politics junkie, this consisted of many long hours and elastic bands.

Just one more hit, man, just to take the edge off.

If I had just cut to the chase, the research necessary to be informed would have taken me less time than to watch a sitcom. 

On a chilly Tuesday I went out to my polling place and was greeted with a line longer than a Star Wars premier. As I waited in line I overheard some conversations, and engaged in a few. The insanity that spewed from my fellow citizens was horrifying. There were precious few who spoke of voting for their man because of his tax policy, or his stance on the scope of the federal government, or economics, or any number of valid reasons. “He’s a democrat/republican” was a common reason and is disappointing, but by far the most terrifying reason was “Because he’s black! Black President, WOOOOO!!!!” I could hardly believe my ears: Were my fellow citizens really ready to cast their vote for the candidate whose skin color happened to be darker? Since when did such a blatantly racist position become a substitute for being informed? I was indignant; why should the inane and irrational opinions of these people be counted equally with my own? Why do we continue to tolerate an incompetent electorate?

            Since the 15^th Amendment in 1870 and the 19^th Amendment in 1920 granted all races and sexes, respectively, the right to vote America has followed a policy of more or less “universal” suffrage. It sounds like a very fair and reasonable idea. After all, if government truly flows from the consent of the governed it makes sense that all the governed should have the right to influence those who rule them. Yet, the ability to vote is simply granted to anyone who happens to successfully make it to eighteen years of age without dying or committing a felony. As Thomas Paine once said, “That which we obtain too easily, we esteem to lightly”. Is it fair or just that citizens, who are not themselves competent or informed, should wield such power over those that are? Who needs this universal suffrage junk anyhow?

            Jason Brennan argues that such a practice is intrinsically unjust. He writes that “many of [his] fellow citizens are incompetent, ignorant, irrational, and morally unreasonable about politics. Despite that, they hold political power over [him]”. Just as it would be wrong to force someone to be operated on by an untrained surgeon, or be driven in a bus with someone who wasn’t qualified to do so, it is wrong to force someone to submit to the will of a voting populace which is grossly incompetent to make decisions. Brennan proposes that a form of restricted suffrage, or epistocracy, may be unjust but it is less unjust than universal suffrage. One of the principle arguments he makes is that of the jury. We expect our juries to be filled with competent citizens. In fact, if a lawyer can show that a potential juror is not competent he is dismissed. If, in a court case, the jury is obviously ignorant (having paid no attention during the trial and admitting to having done so), irrational (finding the defendant guilty/innocent based on bizarre conspiracy theories), or morally unreasonable (a Christian jury convicting a Muslim of drunk driving simply due to his chosen faith) they would not be considered legitimate and there would be good grounds for appeal (Brennan, 2011). The fact that most juries are legitimate would not change the fact that this particular jury was not (Brennan, 2011). Further, even if this same jury acted in a rational manner in 99 previous cases, if they acted in an ignorant or irrational manner in case 100 it would be no less unjust simply because they usually act in a competent manner. 

Just as citizens have a right to expect a rational and reasonable jury, whose decisions they are forced to abide by threat of violence, to arrive at decisions in a rational and reasonable manner, so too do they have a right to expect the same of their government. The government may not make good on this obligation, but that does not change the fact that it exists.

            There can be no doubt that past attempts at restricted suffrage would unquestionably unjust. Restrictions based on race or religion completely disregard the individual abilities of those excluded. To this, Brennan says "A law that made it illegal for atheists to drive would be unjust; however, that does not mean that any law that restricts driving is unjust." Even if we allow that there are some people who may be wrongly excluded, the same could be said for many other restrictions we currently accept at reasonable. For instance, there is nothing magical about the age of 18. Many people below that age are mature, informed, and responsible, while many older than that age are not. While some people being unable to vote may be an injustice, is it any less of an injustice that I should have to live with the decisions of those who arrive at the polls and do not even know the candidate’s names? Is it reasonable for me to be compelled to follow the decisions of those put in power by citizens whose decision went no further than the (R) or (D) next to the name they did not recognize?

            This is not to say that restricted suffrage is without its own flaws. Chief among them is the burning question “Who gets to decide who’s competent?” After all, if there is a test that can control who can vote based on what they know it is not a stretch to imagine such a test being perverted to restrict the vote based on what one believes. For this and other reasons it may be impractical to implement such a system. It is unreasonable to expect that each citizen would be an expert in every subject that could be influenced by the government. Still, if a system could hypothetically be designed that ensured those who went to the polls had at least a rudimentary knowledge of the issues and where they stand, would it not be better than being subjected to the capricious will of the politically blind?

          As it stands we truly live in the land of the blind. Perhaps it is time that we allow the one eyed citizens to be king.

            

Brennan, J. (2011, October). The right to a competent electorate. Philosophical Quarterly. Volume 61, issue 245, pages 700-724. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from the Academic Search Complete database.