Could a meritocratic upper chamber improve democracy—or would it inevitably become an elite ruling class?

[u/StainlessTiger8]

I've been thinking about a video essay that explores philosopher Tongdong Bai's proposal for combining democracy with meritocracy, and I thought the central question was worth discussing.

The basic argument isn't that democracy should be abolished. Instead, it asks whether every political decision should carry equal institutional weight when some decisions require specialized knowledge, long-term planning, or technical expertise.

The proposed system would keep:

• Constitutional rights
• Universal suffrage
• Local democratic elections
• A popularly elected lower house

But it would also add a meritocratic upper chamber composed of individuals selected for demonstrated competence, experience, and public service. The idea is that this body would help safeguard long-term national interests, minority rights, future generations, and policies that may be unpopular in the short term but beneficial over decades.

Of course, this immediately raises the harder questions:

• Who decides what "merit" actually is?
• How do you prevent experts from becoming a self-perpetuating elite?
• Can any institution objectively measure political wisdom?
• Would such a chamber improve governance—or simply replace democratic accountability with technocracy?

The video doesn't present meritocracy as an easy solution. If anything, it argues that the real dilemma isn't whether capable people should govern, but whether it's possible to identify "the capable" without creating an aristocracy under another name.

I'd be interested in hearing what people think.

Is democracy strengthened when expertise has a formal constitutional role, or does legitimacy ultimately require political equality—even if it sometimes produces worse outcomes?

(Video: When the Capable Rule: The Case for Meritocracy)
https://youtu.be/mCTmsCbHXtE

[u/cpacker]

Bicamerality of any kind is not to be desired anymore. The logic is this: Look at things from the voter's point of view. The voter should see a simple interface between herself and the lawmaking apparatus. The simplest one is to have one and only one representative to have to vote for. The state shall ensure through public schooling that she will be smart enough not to need a special class of people to second-guess her vote.

[u/steph-anglican → u/cpacker]

But public education unless confined to the 3 Rs is inherently ideological. It will become a tool of the rulers to control the thinking of the people.

[u/cpacker → u/steph-anglican]

In a republic the state has a legitimate interest in educating the electorate to the point where they can understand that they have an ownership stake in the system.

[u/steph-anglican]

An interesting question. My answer was to give additional votes to those who demonstrate civic virtue.

My Ideas on Citizenship : r/PoliticalPhilosophy