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.
via People Aren’t Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say – Yahoo! News.
Don’t laugh, this explains a lot about the Democrats, Libertarians, and Tea Party too.
Sometimes we’re not even good at judging our own competence. I, for example, am highly competent.
It’s been said (by many people in some form or another) that the beauty of democracy is not that the people get the best government possible, but in that they get the government they deserve.
I was hoping to see a Republican making sense…
Ah well this is good, too.
I came across the Dunning-Kruger effect and read about it online a year or more ago. I think it’s been out for awhile. As I recall, it also recognizes that those people are MORE confident in those judgments in which they are less competent. I have noticed a similar behavior with athletes, where I’ve found professional athletes to be surprisingly modest about their abilities, whereas many backyard and failed high school athletes seem to feel that their skills put them in much rarer company.
“I coulda been a contender.”
@ Tony Hoffman
I have heard it said that what you get out of an education is not so much knowledge, as humility. 😀 A sense of how much you do not yet know.
The trouble is, any other system would be even worse. Democracy may make it difficult to find the best leadership for a country but at least it also helps prevent the worst getting too much power.
So, like “Democracy is the worst form of government ever devised. Except for all the other ones.” kind of good? (paraphrased)
I can kind of see it, except that it’s not really true. Hitler (I know, Godwin-ed) was elected in a democratic fashion. Different from ours, but still democratic-republican style. Didn’t turn out too well. Also, arguments could be made that many horrible dictators, however they came to power, only retained said power due to the collective will of the majority. Whether that was through fear, intimidation, love, political bargaining, etc., the mandate from the masses was necessary in order to convince at least a large portion of the populace to do the leader’s bidding.
And for those who argue that fear is not a primary motivation in democratic elections, I have a bridge to sell you. The Tea Party is primarily fear motivated, it seems. Whether it’s fear of the black man in the White House; fear of an overreaching big brother future that, in some ways, already exists; fear of those communist liberals that want government to effectively neuter the population in terms of self-reliance, etc. Fear is used on the left, too: fear of going back to pre Roe v. Wade; fear of returns to Jim Crow and legalized gay-bashing; fear of some idiot getting into the White House and slamming his fist on “the button” to launch nukes at Iran; fear of a zealot launching nukes at everyone in the hopes of seeing Jebus in person.
Fear is as big (or bigger) a motivation in democratic elections as anywhere. Opposition is mitigated in its approach, however, due to the promise, backed by previous conditions, that future elections will offer the chance to lessen the fear. Sadly, this doesn’t always play out accordingly (i.e. Hitler above).
So, the point, I suppose, is that politics in a democratic regime is much like a chaotic system. There are checks and balances, certain aspects ingrained in the system that set boundaries (sort of) and also provide guidance through residual effects. But, that system can be unbalanced, as we have seen through the most recent executive grab for authority (mostly under Bush II, some continued by Obama). Demagogues are arguably given more power in a democratic system, because the system lends them credibility through election that they would not gain in another system that relied solely on appointment.
On the other hand, you don’t have complete bubble-heads like the current Prince of Wales, or aristocrats like the former IMF World Bank executive (can’t remember his name atm), or autocrats like Assad, just handed their positions on a silver plate to do whatever they wish. Then again, Assad is finding out the hard way that you can’t just do what you wish anymore.
Overall, I’d say the Internet is an effective form of government. A whole bunch of people yelling and screaming, some real yahoos out there getting mostly ignored, a few groups seeing some major political warfare, and companies making dimes off every which way you bend. Wait…
We studied JJ Rousseau as a founder of modern ideas of democracy and I remember he thought universal education was an essential pre-requisite.
Maybe it’s not people that are too stupid to vote, just Americans. This study was done in the U.S., no? The state of civics education in the U.S. is dismal, and the U.S. has nurtured an anti-intellectual bigotry that closes people’s minds to any information which does not fit the hyper-important “narrative”. Ever since the Civil War, it’s been South vs North, Red vs Blue, Republican vs Democrat. The problem is that the Civil War did not end in 1865; the U.S. is still stuck in the Confederate vs Union mindset, and this problem is literally destroying your country.
While I am by no means “patriotic” towards the American State or the American electorate, I might point out that many electorates choose bad candidates. To avoid Godwin’s Law, just a few fun fun fun candidates who received high vote totals (some were admittedly not elected, and acknowledging the complexities of the Parliamentary System)…
Berlusconi…one of my favorite connivers. Italians still loved their very own version of a Newt Gingirch/Rupert Murdoch One Night Stand Gonme Wrong!
Jean Medecin…Mayor of Nice. Beloved for decades. Despite levels of corruption that were breathtaking.
Jean Marie Le Pen. 20% voted for a foaming loony.
Tony Blair. My God…what a slimy, unctuous, vile man. (Maggie Thatcher for Binus Points).
Every Greek Politicians for the last 100 years.
You gte my point. Americans are not the only crazies out there.
I might also note that regional tensions and partisanship are NOT uniquely American. At least the Neo Conservatives are not blowing things up on regular basis like the Basques.
I’ve read that 80% of people consider their skills as a drives to be ‘above average’. Dunning-Kruger or Lake Wobegone effect. Whichever might apply.
Either way, if people are not able to judge their own skills, 80% above average is a statistical impossibility, I’m not sure how anyone would think people could judge the skills of others.
Then again, some studies say that what most people are voting for in a candidate is not technical skill or effectiveness. What most Americans vote for is people who seem like themselves, and people who are comfortable to be around. When the loons on the right talk about Obama being, variously, Not one of us, unAmerican, Muslim; they are mislabeling and projecting their alienation from the public persona and figure they see. Black, well read, worldly, and thoughtfully detached all raise red flags for a white guy with a high school education and diminishing prospects.
Similarly, from the other side, this explains how W got elected – he was the guy you could see yourself drinking a beer with. His foolhardiness, lack of knowledge, and lack of statesmanship didn’t register as important to many Americans. He, as was his historical pattern, slid by on his affable nature and ability as an enthusiastic and well meaning cheerleader with political and familial connections.
I suspect that over time what we are going to see are candidates who are groomed from an early age to have just the right crust of folksy, salt of the earth patina to seem to be ‘one of the guys’. Much like candidates for SCOTUS tend toward stealthiness in their lack of a written record. Underneath this folks crust there will be, in the Clintonian model, a highly capable technocrat; or there will be, as was tried with W, a reflexive deference to advisers. It only partly worked in either case as Clinton mostly failed when he listed to advisers and W made his biggest mistakes when he ignored advisers and followed his own lead. It is more complicated than that but it serves.
Slight off topic perhaps, but how much of the apparent idiocy of the voters could be nipped in the bud by simply outlawing political parties, which would practically force candidates to run on what their ideas are rather than their political party brand name?
It’s Captain Obvious territory that the vast majority of people simply choose a candidate come election day based on whether she or he has an “R” or a “D” after their name, as if it were a choice between Coke or Pepsi. Screw that…let’s talk some ideas here, have candidates put ’em out there in front of the electorate and stop hiding behind some party label.
It could only help the situation.