Distribution of political power by competence or knowledge. Jason Brennan's Against Democracy (2016) argues for epistocratic options such as weighted voting by tested political knowledge. A theoretical proposal.
In Against Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2016), philosopher Jason Brennan argues that political systems should be judged by outcomes and that power may be distributed according to competence ('epistocracy', rule of the knowledgeable). He classes voters as 'hobbits' (uninformed), 'hooligans' (partisan) and 'vulcans' (evidence-responsive). Forms he lists include restricted suffrage, plural voting, an enfranchisement lottery, an epistocratic veto, and voting weighted by a political-knowledge test, possibly adjusted for demographics. Mill's plural voting is an older example. The designs remain theoretical. Critics include David Estlund, who denies that knowledge alone confers authority to rule, and those who expect knowledge tests to exclude disadvantaged groups; Brennan replies to both.
Not enacted as proposed. Brennan's book is a prominent recent defence; reviewers dispute whether epistocracy would perform better than democracy in practice.
Brennan defines epistocracy as rule of the knowledgeable: a regime is epistocratic to the extent that political power is formally distributed by competence, skill and good faith. He lists restricted suffrage, plural voting, an enfranchisement lottery, an epistocratic veto and knowledge-weighted voting as forms.[1]
Estlund, as characterised by Brennan, accepts that knowledge differences exist and that well-run epistocracies might perform better, but denies that expertise alone gives authority to rule; Brennan answers that his case rests on an 'anti-authority tenet' against imposing incompetent rulers.[1][2]
Critics argue that a political-knowledge test would likely exclude members of disadvantaged groups, who on average score lower. Brennan replies that epistocracy would be assessed against democracy's own unequal outcomes and that some designs, such as an enfranchisement lottery, avoid the objection.[1][2]