The theory of epistocracy mentioned in the case against democracy reminds me of Plato’s cave allegory. Brennan’s view on voters who are not intellectual enough is similar to how Plato views people in the cave. They think people who are not exposed to the real truth or wise enough cannot make the right decision and judgment. However, does intellectually superior means that the person is more suitable for voting? The answer is no. Someone’s wisdom can also be the limitation of viewing things. No one’s perspective is omnipotent. By saying so, I do agree that voting is out of pure self-interest. However, I would argue that it is probably not a bad thing to let the self-interest to guide the trend of voting. If everyone is trying to pursue their maximum profit, it will automatically form a system that functions well according to Adam Smith’s invisible hand theory.
I also want to stress that permitting the intellectual more weight of voting does not necessarily resolve the dilemma of less evil voting. A clever person who makes decisions based on cost-benefit analysis may also realize his ballot is not useful as it should be. Under this circumstance, given more weight of voting, the intellectual’s wrong choice can only lead to a worse situation.