Beyond that, I know you said you touch on this in your book and I would love to read it (and probably will), but I have to wonder how you prescribe tackling cognitive biases. Scientists are learning that critical thinking can’t be “taught” in the way have traditionally assumed (even someone like me, who has taken critical thinking classes, is prone to making fallacious arguments and using bad logic). That in mind, it would seem difficult if not completely impossible for anyone to really overcome those biases. And if that’s the case, how can we justify that anyone vote? As a PoliSci major I may have more knowledge of basic political processes, but that doesn’t necessarily make me a “good voter” since my voting has far less to do with that knowledge and far more to do with my ideology/worldview that contains many ideas that simply cannot be verified one way or the other (as all of us have in our ideologies).

To expand this to voting you are essentially saying not that the ignorant and biased have a duty not to vote, that the ignorant and biased have a duty to not be ignorant and biased. In the DD case a person has ample opportunity prior to drinking to learn about the dangers of DD and to put a plan in place. In voting this is impractical (or impossible) as the studies you cite suggest. People are biased in believing how unbiased they are, how can they have a duty to not be biased?

Why not just come out and say what you really mean: Only people who think the same as me should be allowed a voice in government.

What external coercion do you suggest to separate the good voters from the bad?

And how do you ensure that this is a neutral and impartial system and not a return to Jim Crow?