People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

LiveScience.com ^ | 28 February 2012 | Natalie Wolchover

[Olog-hai]

The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.

The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.

As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries. …

[GingisK]

Please remember that articles like this are also attacking the republican form of government.

No they're not! They are attacking the people who vote in the republican form of government. Judging by the people who have been elected to Congress time after time, I can agree heartily with the author.

We are sitting in a political cesspool ONLY because of stupid voters.

[allmendream]

I would put the list of elected leaders up against a list of unelected tyrants and laugh in the face of anyone who suggested that the people were idiots for electing Winston Churchill but brilliant for allowing the Ayatollah Khomeini to rise to power.

[Olog-hai]

---

No they're not! They are attacking the people who vote in the republican form of government

---

Completely false. I suppose it's my fault that I didn't post the last paragraph of the article . . . ?

(Sociologist Mato) Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."

The same conclusion extends of course to republics.

[Olog-hai]

This country does have unelected tyrants, sad to say; those being activist judges that don’t interpret the Constitution according to what is written there, creating “penumbrae” out of thin air and worse. How do we get rid of people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who openly hate the Constitution and have said so? and how could people in the past gotten rid of judges like Earl Warren? Checks and balances out the window.

[allmendream]

Do you know so little of the Constitution?

Congress can impeach judges - even Supreme Court Justices. That they have not chosen to do so is not an indication that there is not a check and a balance on SCOTUS legal interpretation.

If your beef with an elected Republican form of government is that there are unelected judges - do you think ELECTED judges would decide the law more justly - or would they base their decisions on what was popular?

Do you think judges deciding the law based upon popular opinion would be a good thing?

[redgolum]

We haven't been a republic for a long time now. The franchise is to open. The original constitution had a very limited franchise for a reason.

[mo]

“...not smart enough to consistenct vote the liberal/progressive ticket”

is what I’m sure they meant to say....

[Jack of all Trades]

"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 5

[Olog-hai]

Think about the status quo that has resulted from the fact that activist judges are not accountable to the people. An elected politician that deceived his electorate and participated in the appointment of an activist judge—would such have the propensity to impeach the very justice he got into the SCOTUS? Now if I'm not mistaken, even the USSR's Supreme Soviet had such powers over the Politburo as the Congress has over the SCOTUS; but communism encourages lack of morality. All down to accountability, which a republic is supposed to preserve.

AIR, the notion of appointed Supreme Court justices was as a shield in the case of their making unpopular decisions—but all of the unpopular decisions that have been taken in that branch of government have been in favor of the left, not in favor of preserving the rule of law as delineated within the Constitution. Nowadays, we have justices such as this one who openly trashes the very Constitution that she swore by oath to protect—and she was not elected.

This is not a problem I have with the republican form of government; this is a problem I have with the abuse of power within its framework, and the violation of the oaths taken to protect and preserve the rule of law as the Constitution is supposed to keep intact.

[Olog-hai]

Very scary. Sounds eerily like a recent speech by Herman van Rompuy over in the European Union, where he declared that national governments are de-facto European institutions . . .

[newzjunkey]

Sounds like they're pleading for a technocracy. Government of, by and for experts. I thought Obama was all about experts. How'd that stimulus working out? How's that energy policy working out?

It would be nice if voters paid more attention to plans and proposals rather than personalities.

[Lazamataz]

'Scientists' can suck the barrel of a hot .45.

Seriously. I've about had it with pseudoscientists with totalitarian motivations making sh*t up.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Olog-hai.

David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas.

Y'know, other than Dunning and his team -- otherwise how would they have been able to judge the performance of other people? IOW, this "study" is inherently and intrinsically b*llsh*t, another product of the shills for the Party of the Single Party State.

[rmlew]

The Founding Fathers would have agreed with this study. They never wanted us to be a democracy.

[rmlew]

This country does have unelected tyrants, sad to say; those being activist judges that don’t interpret the Constitution according to what is written there, creating “penumbrae” out of thin air and worse. How do we get rid of people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who openly hate the Constitution and have said so? and how could people in the past gotten rid of judges like Earl Warren? Checks and balances out the window.
The term you are thinking of is "Kritocracy", rule by judges.