rationalskepticism.org

jamest wrote:... this would give us our best chance of achieving 'the best possible government' ...

We have different understandings of the point of democracy. It isn't about providing the best possible government, but a government that best reflects the wishes of the electorate. How on earth do you determine 'the best possible government'? Technical ability in management & economics? Most liberal/conservative values & principles?

jamest wrote:... and it is the right of every man to be governed by the best possible government ...

I don't want to be governed. I want the state to be governed. That is, I want a government that governs things, not people. And I want a government that reflects my views about how society should be, and thus implements policies that best help bring such a society about. Other people will have different ideas. The point is, people of equal intelligence will have different & competing ideas about what government should do, & how it should do it. They will have different ideas about 'the best possible government'. It isn't an objective state of being 'the best possible', rather it is a subjective process of governing & reflecting the views of the populace. And that is where the 'right' rests - in the right of the populace to elect those who act on its behalf.

I really don't see that intelligence will solve any of the problems associated with how we elect governments. It won't change what's on offer in terms of politicians. It won't change their competence. And we won't be voting for the most technically competent, not least because there's more to it than technical competence, and technical competence isn't a fixed ability in a fixed state. The elected are as much about reflecting the subjective & aesthetic, moral & ethical concerns of a population, than ever they are mere technocrats delivering a competent administration. And you don't need a PhD to decide whether someone reflects your values & beliefs more fully than another person, party or manifesto.