>> host: jason brennan, has the election of donald trump made colleagues were sympathetic to the case against democracy? >> guest: absolutely it's made it more sympathetic and the public more sympathetic. during the npr interview a couple years ago people were calling in and were quite against to say that again a year ago people called and were saying the opposite i know what do we do about this.

they were sympathetic to the point of saying there is a problem and it's time to think about serious solutions. >> host: if hillary clinton had gotten elected that would have been a case against. >> guest: i didn't predict donald trump was going to win. i didn't write this in anticipation of the victory. my worries about democracy are systematic. they don't depend upon trump victory but it is true given how my colleagues tend to think left-leaning. you know, people most people say they care about procedural constraints and checks and balances. when they believe they are in opposition it's when they are in

power they want to get things done and anything seems like an unnecessary antiquated roadblock so that is how the reason and people are not very principled about their commitment in the checks and balances. the >> host: the filibuster would be a way and he won't change the filibuster but he sounded more sympathetic to the filibuster as a way of limiting the president's power than he would have been 80 years ago. the basic thesis of your book is that most are not smart enough or informed enough to cast a sensible vote. >> guest: we have been doing studies for over 65 years now. what's interesting is how it has remained constant even though they contain all the worlds

information at their fingertips and they argue about meaningless things they do anything and do two simple facts are that the meanest low and variants is high svariance is highso if you taken electorate on the basic questions which is done every two years by the american election studies, you find a top 25% of the voters get a b+ on the quiz and the middle 50% to roughly about the same at the bottom do worse than chance they do a multiple choice test and get more than 75% of the questions wrong. when we try testing the people that stayed on the know even less. if the political information demand change how we vote it does fact change how we vote.

>> host: so political information is a good thing generally because you would want your plumber to know plumbing and your doctor to know medicine. since they are choosing the rules that will govern, i would like them to know what the effects of that are. so why does it matter whether they are well-informed? >> guest: the knowledge suppose i had stomach pain. that tells me enough to know i want the stomach pain to go away but it doesn't give me the knowledge to know that it's stomach cancer. even if i learned stomach cancer that doesn't give me the knowledge to know how to get rid of stomach cancer or how to treat it and that requires a degree of expertise and that is also true of political problems. maybe you are vaguely aware people are unemployed and things used to be better but those facts go beyond what many know

and they don't know whether things are getting better or worse. but even then they might be able to acquire reasonable outcome preferences to know where they want the country to go and maybe they are reasonable in assessing those things but then you know the policies you want to advocate to get rid of the problems to require a degree of knowledge you know what policies are going to work. so if i say there's a lot of crying and one candidate says i'm going to increase the drug war and stopping for his policies, i'm going to do a number of other things and i'm going to reduce the licensing requirements an and held a different kind of policing system you know you want to crying to be reduced doesn't kill you you have to know something about social science or which of the policies is likely to work better. it requires the knowledge of basic facts of what's happening and you find they mostly don't know that and that's what they are likely to do if they win

power and generally don't know that it requires knowledge of social science to know what the economics are and what's going to happen if they get their way and they don't know that. >> host: of course just knowing a lot of things doesn't necessarily give you the answer. you disagree on a lot even though you are well educated. you and rodney george the professor at princeton disagree on a lot even though you are both very well-educated. so it's not simply having access to the facts would lead to agreement. nevertheless, we can test to see if knowledge does make a difference in people's behavior. there is a nice book by the political scientist published in 2003 called quite the preference democratic politics. he looks at data from the studies and asks the question how do people's demographics affect their voting behavior and

the fact that you are one particular race or loving, or thathat you're employed or unemployed and he looks at the effective information controlling that so if you ask people who they are and what they know and what they want and you do this with thousands of people, you can then determine how it affects what people want. and this is a surprising result in a method in general people become better informed regardless of background party or the demographics. they tend to move towards one set of policies and look at the median voter in the u.s.. other people like mark i-india lindsamartingalelindsay and a fe done different tests and they get the same results. they can say things like paul krugman and i got the high information voters are more in favor of immigration than the

average voter and they are in favor of increasing taxes and reducing taxes and the policies they advocate don't go in a republican direction or libertarian direction. they are nuanced. although it does seem like they can in the libertarian direction since i'm a libertarian and i wrote a book on libertarianism if you understand the world better you would be more libertarian, so that seems to confirm that in general they are the informed electorate is more libertarian than the uninformed public that we have doesn't go all the way. if anything they might be sort of more nuanced pro- welfare state people that advocate a significant degree of economic liberty but they are not going to dismantle the welfare state.

>> host: it is sort of the consensus of where the country is. they have a welfare state but they understand where it is expensive and they have more or less been moving in the direction of admitting more people to the political and social society. jews, black people, immigrants, women. all those kind of things are kind of the consensus but now it is the consensus of the voters voted for duty to influence the way things happen. itit's affluence and influence n the book he asks when people in the public disagree about what the policies implemented som, te 50th percentile's come then what do presidents do with them to the side.

then johnson and kennedy and obama are likely to do that and george w. bush. so when he writes that he's a little bit horrified because he wants democracy to work and thinks they should have a vote of influence on the other hand he notes the high income voters tend to be more information voters and favor different sets of policies and high income voters tend to be high information and pro- free trade against the iraq war and they tend to have the opposite preferences so part of what might be happening here is they are carrying more weight and politicians can in some degree get away with doing things the median voter doesn't want.

we think maybe this is explaining why democracy over performance. there is a tendency to be what the average person in public wants but there's also independence among the bureaucracy and politicians and they often do policy that are better than we would expect thet the public got what it wanted. >> host: you described three kind of citizens. what do you mean by that? >> guest: the ideal types that make it easy to think about how people think and how they react. if you've ever seen the lord of the ring movies, they don't care about the outside world, they are not interested in adventure. if you're interested in their pipes and beyond with it. the equivalent of that is a citizen that doesn't have the ideology or many political opinions, doesn't pay much attention to politics and

doesn't really participate much. much. they just want to leave their lives. the average non- boater in the e u.s. as a hobbit so described. if you've ever been to a soccer game where people care about soccer, i've seen what it's like. you know there are these sports fans that are really rabid about sports and we look at how they act they tend to consume a lot of information and they can tell you about the things that took place and they know the staff off the top of their head so theheads thatthey are very welld extremely biased. if you ask people in the rest of the country they say he was but that's the case we are getting the same bit of information.

it would be a person that knows a lot about politics but consumes information that confirms the players and this confirms it. the rivals are regarded as stupid and evil and produce a great deal. that is the other half of the american public. i use it as a sort of ideal type where it is a dispassionate rational person that doesn't have loyalty to his or her beliefs to give them up as new evidence and i think about this a lot because there are a lot and i advocate of the rule because i don't think there are any. rather it's because other democratic theorists when they think about how it's supposed to do what thego what they have inw it would work. >> host: my next question was going to be are there any end it sounds like there aren't. >> guest: some people try to

do things that makes it better behaved when it comes to politics. i think that he is very balkan like. it's the ideological task. the test is supposed to be a thing o where you can tell the difference between the computer or human there is evidence of te computer is actually intellige intelligent. you defend a position that isn't yours and the way people advocate and find amenable that is the description that i

believe. so, the political scientist wrote a good book called hearing the other side that investigates this question and here's something that she finds. if i ask you why would anyone be republican and your answer is because they are stupid or evil he would participate heavily in politics that you are involved in three or more causes. if on the other hand you say i'm a democrat with me explain why they say what they say you can articulate the worldview, you don't participate or give money to the causes. so then we have those that sort of our vastly between different views and in the ideal democratic citizen did this passion and social scientist is trying to reach compromise to figure things out is largely so far as we do have people like

that they are just not that much into politics. you want them advising the decision-maker that brings more than pure rationality to the decision. in this case we can look and ask how long they tend to do. i don't think they do very well. i use economic issues a lot and it's not that when we think about the trade policy and the salon it's not that the public understands the economist point of view and they don't understand why economists are being afraid of trade during the day. it's to be studied and say it leaves these people behind an evidence they don't really know what the stats are.

it's for those that are both cognitively living in a large market economy i think people don't understand that. they are inherently foreigners that are different from them and they don't trust them and they see them interacting as dangerous and that kind of mentality might make sense if you are a small hunter gather tried. it doesn't make sense we have to trust our heads more. >> host:. maybe it's part of the program i came from. the university is ranked in political philosophy so they do

well to concentrate not just in political philosophy that the intersection obut theintersecti, philosophy and economics as a methodology that will not. why would anyone disagree. to figure out what they would look like only people were angels and for that reason i don't need to know much about how they work. it's the states of affairs from better to worse and then i handed over to the social scientists and the tommy how far we can get on that. i have to teach mixed classes, so i spend the class i'm going to teach tomorrow afternoon will be one that spends a good half

the semester looking at social science. >> host: that's probably useful. >> guest: the most famous thing william f. buckley junior of the conservative movement said i would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory than by the 2,000 peoplabout 2,000 people oe faculty of harvard university. maybe i should ask first if you are sufficiently to understand why he would say that and then you think he's wrong. >> guest: if you talk about the alternative what if the elites are beguiled by bad ideas and for that reason we might think there is a lack of common sense maybe they are not going to do with i with her with it at it or they will be mistaken about certain things and the average person will no better damn those in the phonebook to

take take the entire faculty over. you didn't invent the word that it is a new word and it is sent iisn't inmy dictionary or wikipt it means the rules of those who know. there are bad ideas and they reinforce the sun on each other so that's why i may be worried about the harvard faculty as a as a hole.

it doesn't say meets the methodological standards they just kind of pontificate back and forth. so he's right about that but when it has bad incentives, the political knowledge is quite well on average perhaps even lower. if it is in the hands of the f few. you want something in between and which the political power is spent widely with a different point of view coming in and other kinds of people. at the harvard faculty is people that are very high on cognitive

skills also well educated and they all have a phd and they teach as a profession but there are of course many very smart people and even smart people that are not academics. you argue in the book academics should rule and well-informed people should have more of a role. having a bachelors degree as opposed to a high school diplo diploma. he predicts whether you know something is found to be interesting. it's the power of the people and everyone gets an equal voice and it's supposed to be a system which all citizens are fundamentally equal political power. we exclude the basis of the grounds they are supposed to be.

if that is what democracy is supposea democracy issupposed ty david a-alpha he doesn't advocate if there's any kind of political system which power is mby law a portion to the knowledge. there's many different ways of implementing this. play-doh didn't even advocate that other kind of systems that are more plausible are things like provoking. so they advocate of the representatives of government and wanted to give everybody one vote for people that have more knowledge could get an extra vote. if you can pass a very basic quiz of political knowledge to identify who the candidates are into two or three facts about things that happened recently

then you get the right to vote otherwise you don't. you could have a system advocated by the philosopher of the enfranchisement lottery which by default no one gets to vote. you keep having the normal campaigns. but immediately before you select about 20,000 people and they are permitted to vote only if the first undergo som they fd of competence building exercise where they are given certain kinds of materials to deliver faith with one another. you could have a system in which it is interesting as well the walls are passed in the legislatures that certain experts have the right to veto if not past the wall themselves. on the grounds that it was economically literate and on the

ground it is unconstitutional and that they could override it with sufficiently high supermajority vote. and another system is governed by the system which when you go to put on the demographic information into the basic political knowledge then you put down what you want or what policies you prefer. then with that data you can determine what happened to the american public if they all got 100% on the quiz but would they prefer and what would that affect. so these are a variety. i'm not saying we should do them. it's whether they would work better. it's meant to convince you democracy is not the end of itself or in here and we just. it's instrumental and a decision procedure pdf to find one that

works better if the electoral college at its origins as a form of aristocracy. >> guest: there's a large theree debate about what it's meant to do. when you read the early writings people say things like what it's meant to do is to cities and states that don't have all the power and others find it is inherently racist with the reinforced slavery but nevertheless at least some of the people that are advocating it the worry was this is the one in a final check on who the president will be because if it is a bad person they take a bad person or whatever the process is, this is one last check to replace that person with someone that might be better although the people were not going to vote at all.

the people were perceived not to know who the greatest man in the original 13 states were. but they would know who the leading smartest man in the colonies were at that point, so they would elect to getting banned from their state who it was presumed would have that hd understanding of the country and then those people would choose a president, and that seems like a form of graduated democracy that ideally was intended to end up with people who knew more. >> we always had a system in which people vote for a press leak l s entitled we could have them take them if they wanted but they are proceeding and then they rubberstamp it.

in principle it is supposed to be a check on the populist and it's never worked out to be that way and it probably never will. in your book you quote tv stand and it seems that as affirming the full citizenship. you say she's wrong that it was in power with men but if the groups of people are excluded from the vote, through the test, aren't they being treated as second-class citizens and won't they at least field that they are? >> guest: they spent many chapters disentangling everything that comes in here. one part of the question when you get the vote does that make you more autonomous and i think the answer is no. you are not made more autonomous

and you do not move from being a petition or to having more power by getting the vote to resolve because the votes count for so little. it doesn't matter whether you have one or not. if you booted for the other side or this site that you prefer it doesn't make a difference. it's supposed to be a system in which groups matter, not individuals. you can expect negative things to happen. i call this the demographic objection. we know there will be systematic effects in the society. so people are not easily spread among all the demographic groups. they tend to be middle-aged and

white rather than black, male more than female and the effects can be compounded so that on average the 1996 book. the white and whit leave mail ae 50 with scorn the political knowledge roughly three times the unemployed uneducated black woman. so if there were this kind of system you might get a populace that isn't represented as a whole. keep in mind that only applies to the episode. to talk about the oracle this avoids that problem because they were testing the demographics. this would only apply to the plural voting or the enfranchisement.

even then i'm not so sure that it's as big a problem as people think. a lot of people say once you make that point, it is unacceptable and we stopped the discussion now. if you think this is on trust you shouldn't be in favor to of democracy. you should be in favor of this is unfair you are not a demographic. democracy isn't fair. in a democracy as a matter of fact, the voting public isn't representative of the people as a whole. in the systems, the people that vote are more educated than the people as a whole even in the compulsory systems like australia that is still a whole because not everybody does. people get away with not voting and in fact you have the skewed electorate, as much as it is here. further, who wins office tends to be skewed towards the higher information income people and system tends to privilege the

political preferences to some as opposed to others and it doesn't with the median voter it is skewed towards the privileged voters. then what you might call persistent minorities better get a say. let's say you are a native american. democracy could ignore the preferences over and over because you were not big enough that we can just ignore you. even in the current election you might argue this is a system where they got t the say over minorities despite the democratic systems if you care about fairness, you want to flip a claim. depending on number of votes they get in the highest percentage you used a random number generator. it's genuinely fair and everyone has a chance. so it is unfair in the system.

they are probably right. so i care about bad outcomes then you are onto my side asking how will you weigh fairness versus the quality of the outcome. the growth path to th the lower-class and over 100 years it would turn out that it would be vastly richer than democracy and it would turn out to your significantly less futuristic fighting the war. when you go back in the '90s and the paths they want

uninformed voters want to be informed voters were having these punitive measures we have in the u.s. and it's one thing the over criminalization and the incarceration problem in the u.s. wouldn't have occurred if we had a more informed electorate. they perform much better than the democracy that it is in some way unfair to say things are equal or it's better to have that than democracy. because ultimately it's not the title of what is in it because it is against the presumption that no system could be better than democracy. >> guest: i it's what you might call the democratic triumphali triumphalism. it is regardless of what it accomplishes.

number two is the political power that makes you better off and it makes you a better person to improve your character. that is inherently false. number three on no system can work better than democracy. i don't think we know that. there are systematic problems in the democracy that lead to misinformation and ignorance and begin to lower the quality of government. and it is worth thinking seriously about the alternative democracy and start to investigate seriously that we cannot do that in a society until we get over this kind of view that it is inherently trusts, no matter what it does. i don't talk about this in the buck but aside from this, there's other systems we might think about. those like alexander at rutgers and others randomly selected

people put them into some way they enrich them and make them more enforced. robert hanssen advocates the future where people bet on the beliefs and values and advocates the market that can be used to choose the various policies and arguably it will lead to better outcomes than asking the experts what they think. if you talk about how the markets work and how they tend to be more informative than any other kind of system. the law professor at george mason advocates he's worried about this as well and the political ignorance he says he wants a radically decentralized system in which there's lots of different kinds of policies and is made to be very easy to move one place to another. it's easy to change which government rules over you and it

will lead to better politics. what we ask a question about y you. he published eight books in 11 years how do you do that next >> guest: i try to write 20 hours a week. >> host: you have a job and children, how do you do that? >> guest: that is a good question. i try to d let the urgent to tae place. you have lots of e-mails which become more famous and get more and more and if you read the article they would get 300 pieces of hate mail i found that out recently. you have to prioritize writing over other thing is. i'm in a situation i don't teach very many classes only three per year. so i know what to do for the

class. i don't have to read it with new material or study more. i don't spend a lot of time on the small things. i try to make sure it doesn't take my time i just spent about four hours per working day writing up front. i do everything else later and then it's easy to put these things out. the thin thing i am thing i'm pm almost done wit with an almost halfway through our design just beginning and they are churning in the back of my mind. i can move them on a conveyor belt. i need to take a while to think about it rather than not doing enough wor work i move onto the thing that's halfway through that my subconscious figures out what needs to happen over here and i think it is an efficient discipline system of writing. >> host: should we expect more in the next eight years? >> guest: i am on track and then maybe three more in the next three years. we will see what happens.

>> host: having written one book i can't imagine having that many ideas into finding the time to do them all. there's another book by political scientists that generated a "washington post" headline the government elite think americans are morons. is it good to think that way? >> guest: yes and no. this is such a hard question. they have a strong incentive to behave in the ways that may be destructive but the incentives are different.

three if they have genuine ones and ignore them but should listen. on the other hand, i think that they know the public doesn't know much about the social science. morons is too strong of a word. people are quite capable of running their lives in the way if you give them a chance. i'm not a paternalistic person i don't want the government running in a way they are good at running their own.

one metaphor that i like to use as imagine we have a class that announces the take a final exam on the basic political information and you're not going to get your grade i'm going to average all of them together and everyone will get the same grade how much would you study they say i wouldn't study at all. it's not that they are down it's that they don't care. the incentives are wrong. there's two reasons they don't care. they are not that interested because they could follow it. i know my vote isn't going to affect the election. partly they think it's important and it's my job. as you said, i have in my pocket a soda with all the knowledge and the history of the world.

i could learn a great deal about fresh metal. i have no interest in doing so. and i haven't done so and you probably wouldn't want to be running a music venue. people that have little interest in politics and policy and haven't taken the time either because they are not interested or because as you say, they know it's not going to make a difference. should they be running the government or making decisions. >> guest: by a worry about them we look at what they know and the policies they advocate and it seems like they wouldn't advocate if only they knew more. so i think the things they oppress for if they don't know what they are talking about. >> guest: politics is different from the daily lives. in our daily lives we can't afford to accept very many because we would be punished for them.

i'm crossinwhen crossing the sti see what appears to be a mack truck barreling towards me at 50 miles an hour its optimist prime from the transformers coming but if i indulge that dilution i'm going to be punished. when it comes to politics, i can afford any. you and i agree a lot about policy and what should happen. it has no negative effect on the whole world. maybe it helps us to some degree. but it doesn't cost anything. that iif that is true of anybode as well. it is set up to be. it's what we do that matters and nohave matters andnot with any . i'm thinking you argue those in the democracy make bad decisions and you point out difficult decisions are influenced

involuntarily through violence ultimately when they say there's a 15-dollar minimum wage when he was arrested. it seems to be an argument against having the government make decisions but rather an argument against democracy because people make bad decisions through the political process. if you believe in the theory of government authority they have authority over consents to it. the philosopher refuted before the united states was even

founded. the consent of the government fails but that shows may be the government is justified on some other kind of grounds. i would agree with you. i think they are making certain decisions and that is the reason of stripping them of their pow power. i'm trying to convince you if you are a conservative bible convinced you you take the ethnography seriously. you take it over the social democracy. if you are a libertarian anarchists tha then i try to convince you. you say anarchists but if you

have the democracy you should pick up so i'm not trying to take a stance that advocates but i want this to be ideologically neutral and focus on the question of the best form of government. taking for granted what it happens to do. >> host: one of may favorite movies is animal house and one of my favorite quotations he says if the fraternity system is guilty in the entire society and we are not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the united states of america so when i read your book i wanted to know do you hate america or do you just hate fraternities? >> guest: et al. the philosophers are defending in the democracy and also the ideal form of the democracy.

it's a little bit like saying here's how they should work if they did that then they would work really well but then they don't work that well. of course i don't hate america. i dislike certain things and i think we have a sort of the past with a significant degree of injustice and there's all sorts of things we are doing right now that are quite horrible comparing to other countries. the final chapter of the book i call civic enemies. we are part of a vast web of

cooperation. they tend to think of the competitive aspect of fighting for the job for 300 other people and it seems like it's competitive but you and i every it is a system of mass cooperation. if you take the pain that you are holding and ask how many people participated in building the ten day answer is roughly around 50 million. millions and millions that participated were some of whom admit they were doing that. so in our daily lives we benefit from other people and the expertise. but when we get to the politics, things change. one problem is there's a tendency to think if i disagree with you, you are my enemy. i agree i'm more likely to be your friend. that raises what is pretty

disturbing that it' but it's eve than that. the politics takes the possibilitpossibility and narron to a few things into the situational enemies where you're basically forced to be against each other. you and i are taken by some and put into the contest like it's not that i inherently hate you for any reason to oppose even now you kill me or i kill you than i am forced to fight you and you are forced to fight me and we become enemies as a result. you are being tried for a

capital murder trial but to say the jury doesn't pay attention to thto facts of the case they t find you guilty and what they claimed. they find you guilty because they don't like you. or suppose they find you guilty because they were paid off when they find him guilty because they foolishly believe that you are one of the reptilian trying to take over the world if this is the way of getting back to you. i think it woul that he would ha reason to despise the jury for what they've done to you. it's the potential to deprive life, liberty and happiness. your giving its income template without good faith. if we were ruled by the king and he made his decisions we would have reasons.

you're given a significant amount of power and exercising in a capricious way acting in good faith. jim buchanan said don't be romantic about it. it is conservative literature based on the quotes it's not fair that anybody actually said democracy can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself out of the public treasury. and you don't think that is an accurate criticism of democracy. >> host: >> guest: when people like hamilton and madison were writing about this, what would

happen in the democracy we would bargain with one another and it would be a constitutional republic. republic. philosophers don't think that is an interesting distinction but in the form of government we would reach compromise and have a self-interest. it was a pretty reasonable hypothesis. but to my surprise i started studying this is a huge empirical literature claiming that they are voting selfishly. and if they keep finding the answer is no. one of the reason is ever this y time someone got the answer now they thought that can't be right what's tested a different way. the next thing you kno you knows 50 papers showing the same thing. so it is the nationalist associates robe for what they perceive to be the national interest.

it's what they seem to be ultra rustic concern. for most people voting is like doing the wave of a sports game or waving a flag or what you think matters rather than the self-interest and rather they are selfish in their day-to-day lives seem t had to think aboute incentives. if you are a selfish person that doesn't make sense for you to vote in the first place. if donald trump called a november 7 and said i want you to vote for me and if i win i will give you $10 million. it doesn't mean it is worth my while to vote for him. i might make a difference to some small and perchance is pretty high. the selfish thing to do to stay home and play video games or write a paper or do something else, watch tv. if people are going to vote they

do what is good and brigh rightd selfish voting doesn't make sense. >> host: one of my other favorite documents it is a mission statement of the united states says to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men in their just powers from the consent of the governed. does the system rest on the consent of the governed? >> guest: i think about the transaction. if i say i have a guitar and and they send it to me and that is the transaction now think about how the government works. imagine you send me the guitar and say here's you go we are giving this to you.

i could say i didn't ask for it. i have to perform some sort of an action. that would end the deal and it doesn't take place. that would be frog or something else. then in the relationshibeen in e government is like a telecaster, not really regardless what you say or what they are going to do there is no actual act that signifies the consent. if you actively defend it doesn't make a difference. they test the question what if you do your part and government business do thei their part so f there is the case a woman called police and said there's people breaking into my apartment, come

help me and they didn't and the supreme court said that the government doesn't use protection. people might say it is the consent by choosing to remain here that might be true of someone like me. i had the option of living one place rather than another. they don't have the right to go somewhere else. we are not easily allowed to do so. they won't let us come in so we are stuck where we are. it doesn't necessarily show we are consenting. imagine you've been kidnapped and wake up in the middle of the shift and the captain says you either put up with my rule and

if you don't like it you can leave. it's taken up by the other governments and most will not let you in there if he wants to. what is the main value of their readers should get from the book? >> guest: we try to push everybody to vote. you are doing a favor an and ifu are an uninformed, you're not and you should be watching for that instead.

they talk about things like what if we pay people and you can come take this quiz and the voter achievement example gives a tax credit or some kind of payment to know a little bit more these are things that are legal to get people to do the things democracy is not magic and it'and is not secret and dot have the value a person has. it's the tools for producing outcome and we should be in favor of looking for ways to improve the tool or replace it if we can. >> host: thank you for an interesting book and conversation. thank you very much. >> guest

.. finback

>> pdf. >> welcome to our regular book defend ... -- even to. i am the director and rehab the very special guest about the so wonderful pan-american exposition