10% Less Democracy: Why You Should Trust Elites a Little More and the Masses a Little Less

10% Less Democracy: Why You Should Trust Elites a Little More and the Masses a Little Less by Garett Jones

Political systems can be improved by reducing democracy. On the surface, this appears controversial. However, there is already evidence of the success of many "democracy limiting" moves. Elected judges are objectively worse than appointed one. Those that are elected tend to pander to their constituents, and often are likely to give higher damages against non-constituents. They are also more subject to external pressure. Similarly, elected treasurers are generally less competent and more likely to engage in risky behavior. A independent central bank is less likely to print money and has less inflation, while also doing a good job of controlling unemployment.

While some independence are well supported, other democracy limitations are more controversial. Adding some education requirements can improve the quality of elected officials. Requiring a high school diploma or equivalent could be a good basic level. (Preventing felons from voting inadvertently helps serve this role, as many in prison have little education.) Limited the electorate helps to ensure that there will be more that are knowledgeable about what they are voting for. Providing longer terms is also beneficial. Politicians spend significant time campaigning for re-election. Typically more quality legislation happens early in terms, while the end of the term is spent doing things to "look good" for election.

Ironically, some "improvements" can make things work. Eliminating earmarks can reduce quality. Often an earmark is put in place to help trade for approval of other legislation. Without earmarks, it is more challenging to get "good" legislation through.

The book presents a lot of common sense to improve our government, with plenty of studies to back it up. It also provides the case of Singapore with "50% less democracy." However, they are a lucky case - they have a "good" dictator. That gives us our goal. The best government is a high quality dictator. What can we do to have the highest quality leadership, while also having the ability to easily remove a bad quality leader?