In Defense of One Person, One Vote
An Argument for Democracy Amidst the Growing Popularity of Meritocratic Rule
Why should the vote of a learned scholar and a layman be weighted equally in an election? Why not pass a law in which college-educated individuals are allowed to cast two votes, high school-educated individuals are allowed to cast one vote, and individuals without a high school diploma are not allowed to vote at all? In this essay, I want to take these questions seriously, analyze their ideological roots, and ultimately defend the democratic principle of one person, one vote.
Many concerns regarding the principle of one person, one vote are rooted in the idea of meritocracy. Meritocracy is founded upon the idea that society should privilege those who possess the most “merit.” Here, “merit” is a kind of external qualification that justifies a person’s access to material, social, and cultural resources. In a meritocracy, for example, the person who is most qualified for a job should get that job. The people who are most qualified to rule should govern over those who are less qualified to rule. And the people who are most qualified to live should receive scarce resources, such as food.
A common criticism of the one person, one vote principle is that it does not consider the qualifications of those who are voting. Shouldn’t the weight of a person’s vote be proportional to their qualifications? In a meritocracy, a person’s right to participate in governance is contingent upon external qualifications and is not self-justifying. If a person does not demonstrate the capacity to rule, they should not be allowed to participate in the decision-making processes of the government. In other words, meritocracy asserts that a person’s capacity to participate in governance should be proportional to their competency as a leader and as a decision-maker. This is the essence of meritocracy.
Before I offer my critique of meritocracy, I want to underscore that the common use of the word “meritocracy” is detached from the meaning of the word “merit.” Although the word “merit” simply refers to someone’s worthiness, in the context of meritocracy, merit refers to someone’s ability or aptitude. Therefore, meritocracy is not necessarily a government that is ruled by those with the most merit. As it is commonly used, meritocracy is a government that is ruled by those with the most ability to lead. This distinction is important because it emphasizes how modern notions of meritocracy conflate worthiness with ability. Only in a meritocracy is one’s worthiness to exist, let alone lead, contingent upon external qualifications, such as their skills, talents, or abilities. However, merit, or worthiness, need not be defined by external qualification. Is it not possible that people need no external qualification to be entitled to certain rights and privileges? As opposed to meritocracy, democracy asserts that people’s capacity to contribute to governance is self-justifying and equal amongst all.
In a democracy, a person’s innate qualification to participate in government is rooted in their inalienable right to self-governance. According to the principle of self-governance, people are free to govern themselves to the extent that they are not infringing upon other people’s freedoms. Furthermore, the principle of self-governance entails the belief that no one has the natural authority to govern over another person without their consent. Therefore, people should have the right to participate in the decision-making process of any group decision/action that will directly affect them because they must live with its consequences. In a democracy, having to live with the consequences of an action/decision is what qualifies a person to participate in governance. Furthermore, since all lives are of equal value, everyone who will have to live with the consequences of an action should have an equal say in the decision-making process, regardless of external qualifications, such as education level, occupational prestige, or leadership experience. Because the life of a layman is just as precious as the life of a learned scholar, both must be granted the same dignity to govern themselves and, by extension, participate in collective governance. This is the essence of democracy.
To conclude, I want to affirm that the competency of our leaders is important. Indeed, it is the job of the electorate to elect leaders on the basis of their merit. However, it is not the job of the government to select the electorate on the basis of its merit. In other words, to maintain power in the hands of the people, the electorate must determine merit. If merit determines the electorate, power shifts away from the people into the hands of a government that is now able to determine who is worthy to vote. From the Jim Crow era to the modern-day, this power has been abused repeatedly in the form of voter suppression laws that weaponize the idea of meritocracy to prevent blacks and other “unqualified” people from voting. Although it is tempting to meritocratize our democracy by requiring voter credentials, these measures only weaken our democracy by eradicating marginalized voices from the electorate. Only by affirming people’s inalienable right to participate in governance will poor people and people of color actualize the unanswered promise of American democracy.
