Meritocracy vs. Democracy (1 Viewer)

[moll.]

Was watching Boston Legal tonight and Alan mentioned in his closing argument that America (and Australia) are democracies, not meritocracies. It got me thinking: Is that really such a good thing?
Personally I think no. As an arrogant and conceited intellectual elitist I have a few very subtle reasons why, but primary amongst these is the current societal trend - which I frequently bear witness to - of the media, politicians, teachers and anyone else in an educative position having to dumb-down their speech and ideas to get them across. We are a society more interested in what Michelle Obama wore at the Inaugaration, rather than what her husband plans to do with the world. We are a society in whom more copies of Women Weekly and New Idea are sold per week than of New Scientist or Time magazines.
If this were to change to a society in which intelligence, skill or both are most highly valued above all else, would it not be a better place? I say yes.

 

[Venom.]

Complete support for meritocracy. I had this argument with my friend a few days ago, it is an awesome concept.

 

[Sir-BigBoyJames]

Both are flawed systems.

 

[moll.]

Who is to be the judge of who is the most meritorious?

Society will judge a man's achievements.

 

[Kwayera]

On one hand, I'd love to see some scientifically-sensible politicians; on the other...no.

Sorry, I'll have to take Democracy for two bob, Bob.

 

[moll.]

Yeah, except if you're not judged apt, then you are disenfranchised.

 

[withoutaface]

Perhaps you should be allocated votes based on how much money you earn.

EDIT: Definitely.

 

[moll.]

So a democracy where certain people are not allowed to vote?

It might have sounded good on Boston Legal, but I really don't think you've thought this through.

Nah, Boston Legal only mentioned the word "meritocracy", it didn't actually discuss it.
Consider it a dictatorship of the intellectual.
Full freedoms are granted to all and it is illegal to inquire as to whether one is enfranchised or not. But politicians can naturally only come from those who are enfranchised. The system is free-flowing and very liquid in it's movements, as people are still able to earn the vote in their old age and it can be taken away from those who abuse it or lose their standing in society.

 

[moll.]

Perhaps you should be allocated votes based on how much money you earn.

EDIT: Definitely.

It's quite likely that you'd find a directly proportional link between my system and this. Although there would naturally enough be exceptions.

 

[rant]

Well aside from the difficulty of the process, i.e. the voting system, the impossibility of accurately measuring 'merit' etc. it's a good idea.

A really good idea. It's like the intelligentsia revolting against the proles!!! I mean as the OP said we're a society run by superficiality and popularity, skill and education are being left in the dust of evening wear and cash bonuses.

EDIT: i just thought of something by talking about intelligentsia/proles. Eventually the 'meritorious', will emerge as a class of their own right? Then we have on our hands a good old oligarchy. Don't you think it seems inevitable that the system that favours the scholarly elite would be reshaped in this way?

 

[rant]

but obviously if you were part of the system it wouldn't bother you that much

 

[scaredytiger]

you have "subtle" reasons, primarily the level of speech utilised in the media?

um lol k.

 

[Iron]

Conservatives have had a rough time coming to terms with democracy, but we've kinda been scared into supporting such sensible checks after it became clear what capacity and power the modern state has/Hitlerianism. I'm uncomfortable with it as a way of governing, but am satisfied that great men are naturally drawn to the top, often behind the scenes, and there are great forces slaving tirelessly to defend experience from change

 

[withoutaface]

An actual meritocracy would be something along the lines of an anarcho-capitalist state, where your level of influence was only decided by how good your products were or how tasty your particular brand of justice appeared to be.

 

[Lentern]

I think voting should be voluntary, So in one sense I don't believe everyone deserves the vote, someone whom would rather not turn up doesn't merit a role in shaping government but anyone who wants to be involved should be allowed. So in a way that would be a Meritocracy with a very low bar to clear.

 

[Iron]

Na we view voting as a civic responsibility, not just a right. This is the correct approach imo.
Apathy is sinful and will be punished

 

[Lentern]

Na we view voting as a civic responsibility, not just a right. This is the correct approach imo.
Apathy is sinful and will be punished

I agree with the last bit, hence if they want to be apathetic they can have no say in the governing process and probably be worse of for it as politicians pander to likely voters.

 

[Iron]

It would just be a huge waste of time and money imo. Sure it would actually give political parties something to do, but honestly, why bother? Everyone must have a say and claim ownership of the nation's problems.
Democracy is votes, meritocracy in rule imo

 

[moll.]

you have "subtle" reasons, primarily the level of speech utilised in the media?

um lol k.

No, the "subtle" reasons were in relation to what came before that.

 

[whatashotbyseve]

It would just be a huge waste of time and money imo. Sure it would actually give political parties something to do, but honestly, why bother? Everyone must have a say and claim ownership of the nation's problems.
Democracy is votes, meritocracy in rule imo

Ahh, we seem to agree on everything bar religion.

More than financial implications, it is not exactly an impost on voters to have to vote one Saturday for 5 mins every couple of years.