A Critique of Universal Suffrage
by Benjamin Studebaker
Today I’d like to take on the generally unquestioned view that, with certain exceptions (felons, children, etc.) it is good to give every citizen an equal share in the vote and wrong to do otherwise. I will instead make the counter-intuitive argument that it is not only harmful to give every citizen an equal share in the vote, but that universal suffrage makes us less free and less equal. I acknowledge that this is a rather radical view to have, and while I don’t expect the reader to agree, I hope I’ll nonetheless get a fair hearing.
So why do we have universal suffrage in the first place? The principle is that by giving every citizen an equal share in the vote, we ensure that every citizen has an equal input in the way government operates. It seems instinctively unfair and unequal to deny the vote to some people or to give the votes of some more weight than that of others. If every citizen has the same opportunity to contribute input into the government, it’s presumed that governmental policies (or “outputs”) will treat all citizens as equally valuable and consequently be considered legitimate by all.
That said, we know that universal suffrage does not by itself guarantee equal political outputs. We have concerns about the possibility of tyrannies of the majority, in which a subgroup (historically usually white people) uses numerical superiority in order to systematically oppress minority groups. For this reason, we have a variety of constitutional protections for the rights and interests of minority groups. Having put those protections into place, most of us consider our system broadly fair. Inputs are equal, therefore outputs should be equal, and in the event that outputs are unequal in a racist, fascist, or otherwise bigoted way, the courts will correct the imbalance.
However, the fact that we have had gross inequalities in which minorities and subgroups have been oppressed via the ballot box should indicate to us a flaw, at least in principle–it is possible for a system in which inputs are equal to produce unequal outputs. Indeed, the oppression arises precisely because the inputs are equal. If say, blacks were awarded disproportionately powerful votes, it would be impossible to oppress them through democratic means.
Indeed, there are two big problems with this voting system:
- Equal voting input does not guarantee equal political input.
- Even if we had equal political input, this would not guarantee equal political output and in all actuality would likely push us further away from it.
Naturally, I’ve got to argue for each of these points.
Equal Voting Input does not Guarantee Equal Political Input:
The first big problem is that the vote is not the only means by which citizens can contribute political input. In most modern democratic states, citizens also contribute input in a variety of other ways:
- Donations/Lobbying
- Protests
- Petitions
- Publishing (like this blog!)
- Rioting/Violence
There are likely many others. While any one of us can sign a petition about as easily as anyone else, the rest of these all introduce input inequalities. Some of us have more time available for protesting than others, and some of us are more physically capable of using violence or more willing to do so than others. However, it’s publishing, donations, and lobbying where the biggest distinction can be drawn.
Publishing in such a way that one reaches a wide audience is expensive. While almost anyone can at this point blog or comment online at low cost, it’s very difficult for blogs to gain large audiences. This very blog is a case in point–while I might believe that the content of this blog is more intellectually valuable than the content of say, the FOX News Channel, I do not have access to the financial resources that FOX has, nor to the various individuals and technologies that help FOX to convey its message in a way that is highly entertaining to viewers. FOX has exponentially more influence on public opinion and on governance than I do, and consequently the individuals who choose what will be said on FOX have much more political input in this area than I have.
Donations and lobbying present an even more obvious inequity. Politicians need money in order to wage successful election campaigns. Consequently, they will embrace the policies that those who donate money to political campaigns wish for them to embrace. The more money one donates, the more influence one has. For an example, there could be ten times as many environmental activists as there are natural gas lobbyists, but if the gas lobby can offer politicians much larger sums in donations, it may nonetheless be more electorally prudent for the politician in question to side with the gas lobby, because activists represent a very small slice of the population. It is more important for politicians to target the masses than it is for them to please interest groups, so interest group size is much less relevant than the depth of interest group pockets. Some individuals donate millions in the United States to Super PACs, which are functionally propaganda outfits for the views supported by the financially well-endowed. The overwhelming majority of us can never have comparable influence through donations or lobbying.
So the presumption of equal input is itself false. Ironically, we would have more input equality if we were to give poor voters disproportionately powerful votes so as to offset their financial disadvantage. Universal suffrage is an obstacle to such a policy. That said, we could also do a lot to reduce this problem through campaign finance reform. A strong critique of universal suffrage requires my second claim:
Even with Equal Political Input, Equal Political Output Would be Illusory:
There is an interesting tendency in our societies for populations to vote for policies that make themselves less free and less equal. It is by no means obvious that this would be different even if money played a drastically reduced role in our politics. This claim I will substantiate with quantitative data. Here’s US inequality via the Gini Index:
We can easily see that outcome inequalities have widened since roughly the late 60’s. It is now at a level not seen since WWII. We are not merely experiencing changes in outcome inequality–a gulf in educational opportunities is also opening up between the children of the rich and the children of the poor:
Here we can see how, since 1970, a substantial gap has opened up in the amount of educational resources made available to the children of poor parents in comparison with the children of rich parents. Presumably no one believes that whether a child is born to rich or poor parents ought to have a bearing on his life chances. Yet, when it comes time for people to vote, they have consistently elected governments whose policies have contributed to the widening of this gulf, even though the victims tend to be their own children. Most interestingly, it is not the affluent in general who have benefited, but only the very wealth, according to a Piketty-Saez study:
Looking at this data, fully half the gains made by the top 10% have gone to the top 0.1%, and half of the top 0.1%’s gains have gone to the 0.01%. The equality implications from all of this are obvious, but we should also remember the liberty implications–if I do not have the resources necessary to pursue life goals of my choosing, I am being coerced into living a life other than the one I desire. Needless to say, none of us lives a life entirely of our choosing, and the economy demands that people fill many jobs we widely consider undesirable. Some number of us will inevitably fail. But the deck is stacked against the children of the poor and in favor of the children of the rich, giving rich children more freedom to pursue lives of their choosing than the children of the poor have. In this way, poor children are not merely unequal to rich children, they are less free.
When we look at this problem, the most important thing to note is that we got to this place through a system of universal suffrage. I routinely see people on the internet upset over these statistics agitating for some variant of “democracy now!”, implying that if we are not free or equal, we must not be democratic. Here they conflate the vote with the purposes the vote was intended to achieve but has failed to achieve. We already have democracy, and democracy has given us these issues. By changing the voting system, so as to exclude voters who are likely to vote against their own freedom and equity or to empower those more likely to vote for it, we would create a society that is more free and more equal. Here we highlight an interesting paradox–the universal suffrage system, which gives everyone an equal vote, in actuality makes citizens less free and less equal than a voting system in which the vote is restricted or voting power is otherwise unequal. In this way, universal suffrage defeats its own ends.
Awesome article! However I would like more information and explanation on how to implement the ideas you wrote about. Also I think you could also investigate how this system could be abused. What loopholes would be present for the rich/ corporations to take extort and take advantage. Love the idea in theory. But I want evidence. Would love to see empirical data on how this has worked in other places
Thank you, I’m glad you enjoyed the piece! I’m somewhat spatially constrained in these posts, as it’s hard to hold the attention of most readers on the web for more than one or two thousand words. I did write a piece in which I discussed an alternative political system that I think would be more effective and protects against corruption:
https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2013/08/30/reintroduction-to-sophiarchism-2/
It has not yet been tried in recorded history, so I can only offer arguments in theory as to its efficacy.
Democracy was never meant to ensure equal political outcomes for all, but rather for the majority. This is to be compared with its polar opposites, a monarchy, oligarchy, or dictatorship where the desires of one or few are imposed on everyone else.
It’s true that one of the problems of a democratic system is that minorities can be oppressed by the majority, which is why the US operates as a Republic rather than a pure democracy to help alleviate some of those disparities.
In general though, the desires of the majority should take precedence over those of the minority in a democracy. If out of ten people, eight desire one thing, and two desires something else, I see no reason to increase the power of the two in the minority to equalize them against the eight that have a different opinion as that would be undemocratic.
Politicians are influenced by money, but ultimately influenced by votes. If spending output was all that was needed to win an election, Mitt Romney would have fared much better in the 2012 election. Lightly funded Tea Party candidates were able to upend the better financed and heavily favored incumbents leading up to the 2010 elections.Those with money still only have one physical vote.
You state:
“Presumably no one believes that whether a child is born to rich or poor parents ought to have a bearing on his life chances.”
I would say just the opposite- who would think that the child of rich parents wouldn’t or shouldn’t have more opportunities than the child of poor parents? Someone would have to ignore reality to have such a viewpoint. It’s the reason why so many emigrated to America in the first place- to help their children become successful, so that future generations will have a successively easier time, each group benefiting from success of prior generations.
Our economic system is based on capitalism, the more capital one can acquire, the more options and opportunities one will have. Those with less capital will have fewer options.
You state:
“We already have democracy, and democracy has given us these issues. By changing the voting system, so as to exclude voters who are likely to vote against their own freedom and equity or to empower those more likely to vote for it, we would create a society that is more free and more equal.”
While it would be nice to eliminate the uneducated or misled voters that vote against their better interests, but that brings up the question of who is qualified to vote for others? What if the people who choose these “super voters” are also choice impaired, not to mention the “super voters” themselves?
I believe in the saying that power corrupts and we’ve seen time and time again that the more power an individual has, the more likely they are going to abuse it in some way. Concentrating power in the hand of fewer people is going to raise that risk accordingly.
Some common ground is I also agree some people shouldn’t have the “right” to vote if they’ve proven themselves incapable of voting in their best interests time and time again, but that is the price we pay for a democratic system. I believe that the true majority of folks are capable of voting in their best interests and the real problem is they go the way of apathy and choose not to participate, only to complain later.
In a good system of government, every citizen’s interest is considered of equal value by the state. This is not to say that every citizen gets what he desires or votes for an equal portion of the time. Rather it is about impartiality–when the government makes decisions, it should try to get the best possible outcome for the entire population without discriminating among subgroups. Democracy causes governments to ignore the interests of parts of their population, which is problematic.
I agree that money is not in and of itself the entirety of the problem–voter ignorance exists independent of money spent, which is why problem #2 is even more critical than problem #1.
By “opportunities” I mean access to say, educational resources, not access to luxury goods. If you genuinely believe that the children of poor parents should be relegated to inferior jobs solely on the basis of the class they are born into, you are endorsing not capitalism but a caste system.
One needs a standard by which we determine who is suitable for voting and who is not, a standard that is generally acceptable. I offer one such standard here:
https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2013/08/30/reintroduction-to-sophiarchism-2/
Checks and balances are the best way to prevent tyranny. Voting in and of itself plays a negligible role. It is very possible to implement checks and balances without embracing a system of universal suffrage.
Voters are not capable of voting well. If they were capable, they would do so, or they could easily be moved to do so. They do not vote well and no matter how many “vote or die” campaigns are run, they cannot be moved to do so. This suggests that their electoral behavior is not blameworthy but a function of their nature.
I never stated that people of lower means should be assigned lower jobs, but rather that those of higher means will naturally have more opportunities in most facets of life beyond just luxury goods.
One example is education- to attend an ivy league university, a person of lower means will have to qualify for a scholarship to help defray the cost whereas a wealthy person could pay for the tuition outright and skip seeking any scholarships or financial aid. So while they are both free to apply for admission, the person of means has an easier path to get there. To presume that both would have equalized probabilities would be unrealistic.
Our current system has a good share of checks and balances. The fact that it’s under attack and being compromised by those with money and influence applies to all systems, and sophiarchism would be no exception.
The problems you list as corrupting influences on Democracy would be the same or worse under Sophiarchic rule.
I would hold that the vast majority of those in academia would likely not be best suited to lead because of ivory tower syndrome and the lack of real world experience, but for arguments sake let’s assume that those in higher levels of academia were better suited to lead. The stated “low pay and obscurity” as non selfish motivators would instantly vanish under a new system where they would now be the new leading class.
The influence of power and money would also have the same corrupting influences they have today, and one can argue it would be even easier since there would be less people that needed to be bribed. We have judges today picked by both sides that clearly lean ideologically rather than being impartial as well as seen having ties to wealthy benefactors. Those seeking leadership will ultimately make deals with those who can get them there and they will be beholden to them.
The whole is no greater than the sum of its parts- therefore, if it’s true that most individuals are inherently incapable of proper discernment, then it’s hard to make the case that anyone is.
The universal problem to all systems is the corrupting power of money and misinformation. I guarantee that those now in power twisting Democracy would have little issue doing the same to Sophiarchic rule to get what they want over the needs of the many. Whatever system is set up is composed of people, and people will always be influenced by money and power.
The inequity begins much earlier than college. No only is the poorer student less able to pay for an Ivy League education, he is less able to get into an Ivy League school, because poor school systems at the primary and secondary level prepare him inadequately, and because his parents will be unable to afford outside enrichment to compensate.
But even if this were not so, it is absolutely an injustice that a poor person should endure more financial hardship to get a college education than an affluent person. Education’s primary beneficiary is not the student, but society. Society should invest in equalizing the availability of that opportunity for its own sake.
Your critiques of my alternative system are poorly thought out:
Just as our present congress pays itself a wage that is far below the wage paid to private sector executives, academics under my system would call into question their own legitimacy, and threaten their own power, if they were to vote academics an absurdly high wage. In addition, the very choice of becoming an academic indicates that one values advancing political or philosophical commitments more than one values additional income, and since most academics have a political commitment against widening economic inequities, they would likely oppose vast pay increases for themselves out of self-interest.
Bribery makes the same silly error–by definition, these are individuals who care more about political and philosophical beliefs than they care about increasing their own incomes (if it were otherwise, they’d be businessmen or lawyers). It is in their interest to first and foremost express themselves politically. Bribery asks them to put their financial position ahead of something they value more than money–their beliefs.
The notion that the majority is not capable of doing X does not in any way imply that there are not some number of people who can do X. The majority of us cannot conduct heart surgery due to insufficient interest and/or training, but a minority of us can do heart surgery with stunning skill.
We live in a capitalistic system that is dictated by pricing power of supply and demand. A just capitalistic systems allows all individuals access to getting a good education, not equal rights of access to every institution.
It isn’t unjust that some institutions are out of the price range of some students if they are still able to get a quality education at a less expensive institution. To demand that everyone should be allowed to attend any university without restrictions on cost or affordability isn’t capitalistic and wouldn’t work since their would be no natural limiters to control the amount of applicants. It free access to any university for all were implemented, the waiting list for the top tier universities would be years if not decades long even for the most intellectually gifted students.
The above is an example of something that sounds good in theory, but runs into extreme problems when it enters the real world of application. The same applies to your assertions of Sophiarchism.
“the very choice of becoming an academic indicates that one values advancing political or philosophical commitments more than one values additional income, and since most academics have a political commitment against widening economic inequities, they would likely oppose vast pay increases for themselves out of self-interest.”
This would no longer exits is a world ruled by academians. No matter how pure you believe the system is today, it would quickly be flooded with individuals motivated by rising to power if that was the new path to it. To think that the new “class” of leaders would automatically reject the corrupting effects of money and power is highly unrealistic and no better than the democratic idealist of today who thinks their elected representative will remain pure and free of the pervasive corrupting influences.
This is not purely conjecture on my part. There are plenty of “highly paid” scientist today that will be happy to based their findings on the what their benefactors wanted – cigarette smoking is healthy, corn syrup is good for you, climate change is a myth, etc.., and would only go into high gear in a world where they had greater influence.
I don’t hold voting to be at the same level of complexity as heart surgery, but as basic operating levels of decision making.
Your unproven assertion is voting is too complex for the majority to understand as opposed to they just need to learn how to make value based decisions in the first place. You have not shown that the latter isn’t possible to jump to a conclusion of excess complexity,
Equal access to a good education requires equal access to good educational institutions. The “natural limit” to the number of applicants ought to be merit rather than money. This is the case in many European countries in which all universities and schools have the same fee or no fee at all. Students earn places through displays of ability rather than through bribery. This does not merely sound good in theory, it works splendidly in practice.
The number of PhDs cannot increase exponentially for several reasons:
1. Scarcity of graduate school spots–already it is quite hard to get into a PhD program.
2. Scarcity of PhD jobs–even if every person who wanted a PhD could get one, the overwhelming majority would then be out on the street with no employable skills and with merely one vote in a hundred thousand.
3. Dilution–it is in the interests of existing academics to keep the number of PhDs from rising so as to reduce job competition. Under my system, they would also avoid rapid expansion so as to prevent the dilution of the power of their votes.
Haven’t you seen the statistics that show 97% of scientific studies agree that global warming exists? There are always a minority of studies that argue counter, and the authors of these studies may well be influenced by moneyed interests, but the overwhelming majority of academics care first and foremost about their work. Otherwise, they would have gone into more lucrative fields and become doctors, lawyers, and business executives.
Heart surgery is a mechanical task. There is a right way to do heart surgery that is known universally by all heart surgeons. All a Med student must do is learn this procedure. The political arts are much more difficult because we not only do not universally agree on which policies will effectively achieve our objectives, we do not even agree on what our objectives ought to be. It is very hard to discern good policies from bad ones or to decide what the proper ends of the state should be. These questions are open-ended. Even with years of training in how to think about these things, vast disagreements are endemic.
[…] Studebaker, B. (2013, October 17). A Critique of Universal Suffrage. Retrieved from https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2013/10/17/a-critique-of-universal-suffrage/ […]