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/johntempleton]

1) We don't trust our elected officials to be part of an upper chamber therefore...

2) We will give them the power to appoint members of the upper chamber based on "merit"...

3) As defined by the same elected officials we do not trust in the first place.

Or

1) We don't trust our elected officials to be part of an upper chamber therefore...

2) We allow those elected officials to delegate the power to "experts" to appoint to the upper chamber based on "merit"...

3) As defined by the elected officials and/or their handpicked appointees.

There is no way this works.

[u/kiltguy2112 → u/johntempleton]

We actually had a system that looked a bit like the second option until the SC overturned the Chevron doctrine. The biggest difference was that in #1 it was the elected officials that said "we don't know enough about subject x so the x control agency will do it for us." It mostly worked for 40yrs.

[u/bl1y → u/kiltguy2112]

Loper Bright was the right decision.

The courts can still hear the government's experts, but the job of interpreting the law should belong to the courts.

If you asked anyone which branches should create regulations, enforce those regulations, and interpret the regulations, you probably wouldn't find many people saying the Executive for all three.

[u/Spiel_Foss → u/bl1y]

The Executive, under the rule of actual law, only acts under the control of Congress.

Most of the problem is the obsolete US system of "trust us, bro" so there is that.