Achieving an Informed Electorate

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

-Unknown

We’ve all seen them: the flat-earther with the misspelled sign, the clueless teen who can’t name the Vice President, the blind party loyalist who cares about winning more than what’s right. For most of us, there are some people you have a hunch are incompetent in the voting booth.

Uninformed people make uninformed choices. And too many are uninformed. Nearly a third of Americans cannot name any of the three branches of government and a whopping 74% fail to name all three. One in three native-born Americans fail the civics portion of the naturalization test and thus would be deemed unqualified for citizenship were they not born here. Yet, 100% of Americans are able, even encouraged, to vote in every election on every position and issue on the ballot.

I myself have had the humbling experience in the voting booth of facing my own ignorance and realizing that, for some things, I am just unfit to vote. Candidates for Attorney General? Never heard of them. Comptroller? Not even sure what they do. Judge for the Appellate Court Second Judicial District? No idea.

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato loathed democracy for this reason, placing it just above tyranny in his ranking of government types. In his book The Republic, Plato states that democracy “is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.” This dispensing of equality to “unequals” is of concern to Plato as not all people are capable of determining what is required to produce a just, stable, and prosperous state. When everyone has a say regardless of qualification, the people will elect officials unfit for the position. Plato held that inevitably the masses would elect those who promise them luxuries that cannot or should not be delivered to maintain the health of the state. The result is a government lacking anyone to make the unpopular but necessary choices.

So where do we go from here? Do we relinquish the best of our children to be groomed as philosopher-kings as Plato would suggest? Do we revoke the right to vote from a large portion of our citizens? Well, before you send your favorite child off for training or shred your voter registration, there are a few other options to consider.

Opt-In Ballots

Setting default options to require someone to either opt-in or opt-out has been thoroughly documented by behavioral economists to have a profound impact on a population’s end state. Ever signed up for a free 30 day trial and forgotten to opt-out of the monthly membership the company then signed you up for automatically? Ever been added to an unwanted mailing list because you didn’t check the box telling them no? If so, you have been a part of this opt-in/opt-out phenomenon.

For voting, the government can either presume you want to be registered to vote for all offices and issues in each election unless you opt-out, or they can not register you to vote unless you opt-in. There is a big movement in the United States right now about automatically registering voters and thus switch voting registration from opt-in to opt-out. This should results in a greater number of people voting as it will enable the want-to-vote-but-failed-to-register people to vote since all citizens are now registered automatically. Nine states and the District of Colombia have passed laws for automatic voter registration, with the first implemented in 2016. Most Americans, including myself, believe this to be a positive thing.

Even while we change voting registration from opt-out to opt-in, we could change individual offices and issues on a single ballot to each require individual opt-in. This opt-in would be done with a click of a button while voting rather than through a trip to the DMV. So, instead of being handed a long ballot with all candidates listed to vote for, a menu of offices/issues up for vote would be presented from which you would select (opt-into) which specific offices/issues you would like to see and vote on.

I can’t be alone in saying that offices like the Attorney General, Comptroller, and Judge for the Appellate Court would never make my ballot. Instead, I’d stick with the Presidential ticket and the issues and state and local offices I cared enough about to research and be informed on. Opt-in/opt-out behavioral economics predicts that many voters would do the same.

Thus, requiring opt-in to each office/issue on ballot (but not for voter registration to access a ballot) would reduce the number of uninformed voters while still allowing for unencumbered voting on any issues/offices desired.

Voting Tests

America has a particularly ugly history with requiring tests in order to cast a vote, so this option must be approached with particular caution. After gaining the right to vote, African Americans in the South were required to take “literacy tests” in order to gain access to the ballot. These tests were a series of intentionally confusing, impossible-to-pass collection of questions created for the sole purpose of preventing African Americans from voting (white people were not required to take the tests).

Despite this terrible past, voting tests done right could guarantee that every voter possesses a minimum level of subject matter knowledge. The Policynotic Constitution proposes a system where all people, without testing, can vote directly on the set of laws governing the knowledge-based requirements and entrance quizzes required to vote on other items. To access other parts of the ballot, a quiz may be required. To prevent a repeat of the discrimination and disenfranchisement of past such tests, these tests must be administered equally to every voter and not be overly difficult for an adult with sufficient motivation to study for and pass. The tests must be short, clearly worded, and easily obtained. All material on the tests must be based on well established facts and existing laws. Study materials necessary to pass the test must be provided and the test may be retaken as many times as needed.

Vote Delegation

Imagine a system where you are allocated vote tokens that you may use to vote on offices and issues you care about and then pass along vote tokens for offices and issues about which you are inadequately informed to someone you trust to vote on your behalf. Those vote tokens may then be further passed along (if you allow it). The original voter may review and change any votes made on their behalf.

Such a vote delegation system is impossible given our current method of filling out a ballot as you would any form all at once from a voting booth and submitting your votes. However, if instead voting were moved to a Blockchain capable of securely tying vote tokens to anonymized voter IDs, a vote delegation system would be possible. Democracy.earth has developed such a Blockchain, Sovereign, and made it free and openly available for further collaboration and use on Github. In Sovereign’s voting system a “liquid democracy” is established wherein individuals may compete for vote delegation by building up a good reputation through their voting records and public reputation.

The Policynotic Constitution also includes a voting blockchain with vote delegation capabilities. Unlike in Democracy.earth’s system where votes may be delegated to a person to vote on your behalf, votes may be delegated to Vote Templates, which is a pre-determined and publicly posted list of choices for ballot items. The delegation may occur for whatever subject matter or ballot items the voter specifies. All votes may be reviewed and changed prior to submission.

Conclusion

In the current system, the average voter is woefully uninformed, leaving our society susceptible to systemic bad leadership. These methods have the potential to alleviate much of the problem of an ignorant electorate, but are not sufficient. Voter education and outreach can also play a huge part in informing we the people and equipping us to build a better government one informed vote at a time.