In lieu of the recent election, I was surprised by the results based on what was polled. I began to see statistics about the demographics of people and who they voted for. In general, the President-Elect Donald Trump acquired many of his votes from uneducated people. I was thinking back to past political philosophies that I had been taught, and the question arose in my head as to whether it would be better for everyone have the right to vote (Democracy) or if well-educated, most elite individuals with the best interest of everyone (Plutocracy) should determine who might lead us.

Let me begin by unpacking the idea of a Plutocracy, from the description above it almost sounds like an oligarchy, however, it takes on a few different characteristics. In short, a Plutocracy has three classes gold, silver, and bronze that would achieve their standing objectively. The gold class would be the people making the big decisions for the people, the silver, which would be clergy people and esteemed positions, and the bronze, which is essentially anyone else- we might see them as a "blue-collar" worker.

There are many questions that arise when seeing this first like "how do the gold take a test that they would've had to have created for themselves?" The key element to this idea is that the classes are separated by virtue- not by power or financial gain. People are put in their designated class to help the group or civilization thrive together. This was not by any means a way to oppress people. The bronze wouldn't want to be in the gold because they would be content in their class.

Now, comparing this to the Democratic-Republic we have today, there are quite a few discrepancies. Firstly, we live in a country where everyone has the right to vote, which is truly a wonderful freedom. Some could argue, though, that some may not have the capacity to see beyond the immediate consequence of their choice. Second, Being that we are all guided by our own self-interest, it can be difficult to rationalize choosing what may not be best for the individual. Emerson said it well when he mentioned the power of the plurality and that the opinions of various minority groups often get muted when their opinions do not align. Third, there has been many instances of absolute democracy, in which it always fails. The Electoral College that we have today combats this to some degree; however, it cannot do much more than what the people give way for it to.

America has seen some level of a plutocracy in our past- especially when looking at "The Establishment." The thought behind the establishment was that Americans cannot see what is best for themselves, so consequently we went to many wars and had an aggressive foreign policy as a nation. The Establishment is not the same as a Plutocracy for the simple fact that it in of itself was guided by its own self-interest. So I leave you with the original question of what might serve a people better- a democracy or a Plutocracy.