My latest Hornbook Review at 3:16 AM is of Tiago Santos' excellent book on parliamentarism and can be found HERE. While we agree on the main issues, I did find a couple of things to complain about in Tiago's work (when do I ever not?), so I thought it would be nice to give the author an opportunity to respond here at luckorcunning. I'm grateful that he did generously provide the following remarks:
It is probably petty of me
to write a rejoinder for such a flattering review, but anyway, here we are. It is
clear that Horn and I agree on a fundamental level on the majority of issues.
Still, I would like to address the two paragraphs where there is some
disagreement and try to clarify my views. Setting aside that I am not sure I
would endorse democracy if it were consistently associated with terrible
outcomes, I would point out that the parliamentary type of democracy is exactly
the one most prone to bringing about “what the people there want”. My point is
that whatever justification you think is most important for a form of
government, whether achieving good outcomes, or achieving what people want,
parliamentary democracy is superior to presidential democracy.
I also do not think the
book the book has an epistocratic tinge. I admit I do agree with Jason Brennan
that the quality of votes can matter significantly. However, I don’t think an
epistocratic form of government could be implemented in any practical way. One
reason is that those qualities are distributed normally, so that any cutoff
point would seem arbitrary. A second is that any such proposal, even if
theoretically sound, would face insurmountable political challenges. However,
the main point is that neither Caplan’s nor (Geoffrey) Brennan and Hamlin’s
analysis of voting, which are the ones my book relies on, depend on there being
any kind of difference in rationality among voters for the undesirable results
(both from an outcome point of view as well as from a “what voters actually
want” view) to come about. In fact, Both Caplan, as well as Brennan and Hamlin
assume rationality.
And this does matter for
the parliamentary-presidential debate. In elections for president, it is much
easier for a candidate to choose a few salient issues (while ignoring the vast
number of other problems a country may have) and run their campaign on those
issues alone, making the presidential elections close to a plebiscite on them.
Smart candidates with little concern to the actual consequences of their
promises will pick exactly those kinds of issues which will gather expressive
support. Candidates in parliamentary systems, however, will much more often
depend on a well-organized party, which will not have the luxury of ignoring
the consequences.
All in all, the fact that
both a critic of epistocracy such as Walter Horn as well as a proponent of it
as Jason Brennan have endorsed parliamentarism* over presidentialism appears to
show the robustness of parliamentarism (or, conversely, the fragility of
presidentialism).
*As readers of my book
will have noted, Jason Brennan was very kind to have written a blurb for the
book. In a terrible lapse, I failed to thank him in the acknowledgment section.
So I hope I can use this opportunity to very belatedly thank him (and Horn, of
course) for the words.
--Tiago Santos
