> you personally (mcherm) get to define it Oh, if I get to be absolute dictator (and yes, getting to define the value function IS equivalent to being an absolu

> you personally (mcherm) get to define it Oh, if I get to be absolute dictator (and yes, getting to define the value function IS equivalent to being an absolute dictator) and all voting is merely advisory, then I'm perfectly happy with epistocracy or whatever else you want that puts that in place. > Suppose further that democracy produces segregation, but epistocracy or dictatorship does not. (On all other policies suppose they produce the same result.) I do agree to assess electoral policies based on their outcomes, not some other approach (like a fundamental "principle" about how elections should be conducted). So if I assume that method "A" produces an outcome that I like better than that produced by method "B" then under that assumption I do prefer method "A", regardless of what "A" and "B" are. But this does not persuade me in favor of epistocracy. There are lots of theoretical arguments why having only knowledgeable people make decisions would result in better outcomes. But it would be foolish to evaluate a policy only on the basis of theoretical arguments without considering the outcomes measured through practical experience. And practical experience has shown that attempts to introduce a filter to allow only "properly educated" people to participate frequently seem to devolve into a mechanism for excluding certain groups from participating. If epistocracy is marginally better than universal suffrage, BUT is fragile, in that it comes with a much greater chance of devolving into excluding of certain outgroups (like racial minorities), then on the whole, universal suffrage would be superior. And my view of history suggests that this is the case.