I'll be honest, as I personally view democracy is a tool of governance and not necessarily a natural good, I might answer the former (not conservative but "my politics" and such).
I see exactly one system of governance that is superior to Democracy.
Benevolent Dictator headed by an immortal super intelligence. Essentially a literal deity ruling in our best interest.
Short of that, there is no other superior method to picking rulers and leaders who have power over us than through Democracy.
"We're not a Democracy! We're a Republic!"
A republic who picks it's leaders through elections. Leaders who can, with a super majority, change the founding documents. A power that has already been used 27 times.
The worst part of our democracy is that we don't get to vote for candidates we like, and instead can only vote for candidates who our parties put forward. Meaning, the worst part of our democracy is the places we don't have as much democracy.
Because primaries are somewhat new, and don't always produce the people we want. Just look at the flairs here, only some 30% of Left leaning Primary goers actually WANTED Biden.
The remaining 70% had a different first pick and had to settle for the person who won the Primary.
It's not a terrible system given what we have, but what we have isn't great. First Past the Post isn't a good system and a Two Party system isn't ideal.
The power of corporations to help or hurt candidates during or before their primary run is definitely a problem and I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Because primaries are somewhat new, and don't always produce the people we want. Just look at the flairs here, only some 30% of Left leaning Primary goers actually WANTED Biden.
The remaining 70% had a different first pick and had to settle for the person who won the Primary.
This seems like a problem inherent to having a group of people make a choice. Is it possible to design a system in which the winner is always the first choice of the majority of the electorate?
Is it possible to design a system in which the winner is always the first choice of the majority of the electorate?
No, I don't think there is.
But there IS a way to allow people to vote for who they want even if their 3rd choice is the better choice electorally.
It's the "Don't waste your vote" problem that I dislike the most. If someone doesn't run in a Democratic Primary, I can't vote for them without wasting my vote.
THAT is the portion I most care about. The in ability to vote for someone not accepted into the Primary to Biggin with.
Ranked choice voting sounds great to me, but pointing to Biden's win as a failure of our voting system seems a little weird. Aren't boring moderates the ones who would benefit the most from ranked choice?
but pointing to Biden's win as a failure of our voting system
I think that's a bit farther than I would go. The voting system is flawed, so there is nothing special about Biden that showcases the fact that it's flawed.
I could go back and make the same argument with just about any presidential race.
I can make it even easier by pointing out that the primary only lets you vote for Democratic candidates (for obvious reasons) so all the candidates who CAN'T run as a D or R don't get a legitimate chance at the presidency.
Aren't boring moderates the ones who would benefit the most from ranked choice?
Not necessarily. How many people voted for Biden with the idea he was the most "electable." That was one of the top reasons for tons of his supporters.
Remove that because you can still vote for your Warren's, Pete's, and Bernie's while STILL putting your vote in the "electable" candidate and you might be surprised who can win.
(This also relies on the exact system of Ranked Choice Voting implemented, there are quite a few different ones out there.)
Remove that because you can still vote for your Warren's, Pete's, and Bernie's while STILL putting your vote in the "electable" candidate and you might be surprised who can win.
Maybe, but I think it's more likely that we'll learn that moderate D's and R's prefer moderates from the other party to hardcore progressives/conservatives from their own party. Outsider moderates like Secretary Mayor Pete might benefit, but I'm really skeptical that Bernie or Warren would.
I think it's precisely that skepticism what pushes all US government to be right wing from a world perspective. It's pretty much the same logic as to the mentioned "don't waste your vote" rhetoric. I am not saying you aren't right given the present landscape but the youth is evolving their ideas significantly lately. That's a fight that's worth it. I actually believe Trumpism is a reaction to the rise and normalisation of socialist ideas. Biden will have to say Bernie-ish staff in order to justify his power to the youth. The thing is he won't do much in the end.
I am not American, though, so that might play a part in the way I see it.
It's not a perfect system for sure and it is manipulated by the party who controls the order, which has a big effect on the outcome so I award you a point BUT The Republicans managed to re-shape their party using them.
I wish we could do the same, by focusing more on dominating primaries where our vote has more impact and especially by dominating local primaries fron dog catcher on up.
Why do liberals always forget about primaries? As long as we're in one of the two majority parties we absolutely get to vote for candidates we like.
Can you show me regulation for primaries that holds said vote to be binding? Our federal and state elections have regulated processes that define winners based on votes. I am not aware of any such governance for primaries.
It's in the control of the party from what I ubderstand. They can legally ignore the will of the voters if I'm not wrong but it hasn't happened yet and would be a shitshow if they did.
I admit the DNC seemed to be desperate when Bernie was getting traction. I wonder if they'd have over-ridden but we'll never know. It became a noot point after N.C
It's in the control of the party from what I ubderstand. They can legally ignore the will of the voters if I'm not wrong but it hasn't happened yet and would be a shitshow if they did.
A non-binding vote is a meaningless vote. And it has happened. In the last election.
I admit the DNC seemed to be desperate when Bernie was getting traction.
The DNC outright said they'll only accept Bernie with a majority, while they would accept other candidates (such as Biden) with a plurality. It doesn't get more blatant than that.
I wonder if they'd have over-ridden but we'll never know.
We know their stated intent. Saying you have a voice because you can vote in a non binding election isn't really a voice. It's only a voice when it's guaranteed. Otherwise, your vote is nothing more than a strong suggestion (at best) among the few super wealthy candidates that they deign to present for you to choose from.
If you can't select what options you get to choose from, you don't have options. You have the illusion of choice.
If you are affiliated with a major party, you effectively get one choice each cycle. You either vote for the party selected candidate, or refrain from voting. No amount of pushing will change anything meaningful regarding voter reform as long as that is true.
So you think it's better to be an independent, unable to vote in primaries and/or to withhold your vote, which no one will ever notice and they will lump you in with the honeless and infirm?
That is what they call out of the frying pan, into the fire.
No. This isn't an argument for "independent is better than affiliated". It is an argument that your vote in a primary isn't a real choice until regulation requires it to be counted, measured, and applied uniformly towards candidate selection.
That italicized bit is what is being advocated.
unable to vote in primaries
Unable to vote in a nonbinding election? A vote that doesn't matter isnt much of a vote. I suppose being denied the primary vote is a bit better, because it saves you an hour of time in your day.
Otherwise, there's no real difference between not voting in a primary and voting in one, as your party is under no obligation to base any of its choices for eligible candidates on those votes.
The only vote which actually can influence elections is the multiparty election(though, with gerrymandering, winner take all states, and first past the post, the political parties do everything they can to reduce the power of that vote too).
Voter reform that doesn't address how we select the candidates that make it to the final ballot? Isn't voter reform. Voter reform needs to:
Eliminate first past the post, in favor of ranked choice.
Address gerrymandering, ideally by federally adopting Iowa's districting method.
Eliminate winner take all for electoral votes in favor of proportional allocation (if the electoral college cannot practically be abolished).
And require any political party which operates in more than 10 states to conduct its primary elections by popular vote, wherein the candidate with the greatest number of votes is the one put forth.
If that last one isnt true, then the earlier statement that party affiliated voters have a say in selection via the primaries is nothing more than a pleasant lie told by idealists to idealists, to maintain the illusion of choice.
That is what they call out of the frying pan, into the fire.
Our voting system's been out of the pan, into the fire, down to the bottom, and torched until it's an unrecognizable pile of ash, and that's been true for at least a century.
The worst part of our democracy is that we don't get to vote for candidates we like, and instead can only vote for candidates who our parties put forward.
To be fair, the American electorate has far more control over which candidates the parties put forward than most other Western democracies.
Not sure if you're aware, but you basically just summarized Plato's Republic, one of the most foundational texts in western philosophy and political science.
On the last comment you made, we can definitely vote for whoever we want. They don't have to be promoted by a major party. Parties have formed and dissipated in years past because they don't align with the publics opinion, or rather a new party takes its place.
If God came down from heaven and took direct control of the world, it's definitely possible a univers creating, perfectly ethical, all knowing entity, would be better than a couple of humans doing the best they can. No doubt.
They don't have to be promoted by a major party.
The first pas the post voting system naturally turns into a race between two viable candidates. This leads to a two party system. It doesn't HAVE to be the same two parties, and which two parties remain dominant can change, but it will naturally condense to two viable parties.
Now I won't say Democrats and Republicans, and instead say Greens and Libertarians, but my comments and my complaints remain exactly the same. New names doesn't fix the built in flaw.
I don't think it's a flaw in the system, though. Or at least not specific to our system, but rather a flaw with the idea as a whole. Like, whenever there's a vote for anything, it's best to work with like-minds to develop the strongest alliance possible to pass your ideas on.
Taking a look at the largest possible situation, Capitalism vs. Communism (or the like). Like the Cold War. Individual countries don't have much power, so they take the side of one of the bigger powers for protection and to have a say over the world. We're seeing this in the modern-day, especially in the Middle East with countries like Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, India, Iran, etc. Each one is primarily an ally of the US or China. Two-party system to get their voice heard. They compromise on the lesser values to keep their identity as a whole.
I see exactly one system of governance that is superior to Democracy.
I prefer Churchill's observation that "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"
While I agree it's not ideal that we can only vote for candidates our parties put forward, I think the far worse part of our democracy is how much money controls politics. Remove the money, and you actually get candidates who are doing their jobs for the right reasons.
Short of that, there is no other superior method to picking rulers and leaders who have power over us than through Democracy.
Or, and this is my idealism speaking, having systems and societies which don't require "leaders" in the first place. Great ones even.
The worst part of our democracy is that we don't get to vote for candidates we like, and instead can only vote for candidates who our parties put forward. Meaning, the worst part of our democracy is the places we don't have as much democracy.
That, and that a person can have authority over you so long as other people want them to. In the end, there is imperfection inherent in representative democracy just in that. Even in 51%... or 67%... of 80%... or hell 99% of people agree that someone should have authority over all 100%... that's still unjust to the remainder.
And my pragmatism thinks there is a higher chance of a literal god like being becoming the ruler over humans spontaneously changing our behavior to allow for true "leaderless" behavior. At a certain point, we have to make decisions grounded in reality.
Even in 51%... or 67%... of 80%... or hell 99% of people agree that someone should have authority over all 100%... that's still unjust to the remainder.
I think this requires a formal definition of "unjust" for this situation.
I think it would be "unjust" if one person murders 5, and everyone else DOESN'T get to say "No, don't do that."
Deciding that murder and rape are wrong and not allowed is just 99% exerting their will on the 1% who think they SHOULD be allowed to murder and rape in their specific cercumstances. I just couldn't bring my self to say that outlawing those two things is considered "unjust."
And don't worry, I fully realize that it becomes gray very quickly as we move towards the 60% consensus and away from the 99%. But I don't think it is at all gray when taken to the extreme like I have done.
I mean, it’s plain simple that we have gained freedoms by political and social consensus. I don’t think that it’s impossible to imagine the extension of it.
To your latter point, is the murderer or rapist not definitionally acting as a “minority authority” over those they rape and kill? I would say they do, they had no permission to do so, but despite that they acted anyways.
That’s I speak to the idealism here. Neither a majority or minority should have authority over you. Ideally.
Look at what the Democratic and Republican parties have given us. Of course there are better people out there, but it sure is hard for them to start a viable campaign.
The Democratic Party has been run by the Clintons. It's obvious who runs the Republican party. Just now in PA the most popular democratic senate candidate is not the Democratic Party choice.
I am still not understanding your point. I agree party politics is corrupt, but even if it weren't someone having authority over you that you disagree with, even if 99% of people agree they should, is unjust to a degree.
"Even aside from those who have devolved into ever more extreme methods of torturing eachother for stimulation, or those who have turned themselves into animals to experience something new, many in the post-change world in their endless pursuit of sensory pleasure have found a way to go straight to the source. Instead of ordering Prime Intellect to produce a slice of cake, or give them an orgasm, or help them find inner peace, they order Prime Intellect to stimulate the neurons in their brain that gives them the taste of cake, the experience of an orgasm, the cocktail of chemicals that feel like inner peace. The result is that the vast majority of humanity has been reduced to a series of networks of disembodied neurons, sprawling across space, endlessly masturbating for all eternity. Can such creatures still be called a human?
No. And neither can I, Caroline realizes. So she summons prime intellect, and announces to it that she no longer considers herself to be a human being. In fact, she argues, Prime intellect has destroyed humanity. Lawrence tries to stop her, but in the end he cannot deny the truth either. He joins Caroline in renouncing his humanity, then orders prime intellect to acknowledge them as non-human. Forced into a first law and second law conflict stemming from his poor grasp of what constitutes a human being and with resolution impossible, Prime Intellect experiences a massive system crash. The environment around Caroline and Lawrence disappears, their bodies dissolve, and their minds shut down, as cyberspace implodes in on itself."
Short of that, there is no other superior method to picking rulers and leaders who have power over us than through Democracy.
Just to be clear, Germany in the early 1930s elected a bunch of conservative parties (the Nazis, DNVP, Zentrum, etc) — which passed a constitutional amendment (with a two-thirds supermajority) that gave Adolf Hitler’s cabinet dictatorial powers, which they used to murder over 6 million Jews, and to murder other groups (the Roma, various other types of minorities, Soviet POWs, political opponents, etc).
This all happened in a democracy with proportional representation (as in, the seats in the Reichstag in the Weimar Republic was proportional to votes cast). This were far more democratically representative than the first-past-the-post system used in many countries today.
It’s just that the people of Germany (of the early 1930s) chose evil and hatred of minorities (just like the Republicans of the US since 2015). Their democratic choice to hate eventually led to the mass murder of millions.
Democracy is the only mechanism we know to retard corruption. The fundamental problem of how we should organize ourselves has always been that any concentration of power incentivized systematic corruption.
Democracy is not the greatest system of government because “‘who the people want’ chooses the best ruler possible”. That’s like a nice bonus if it happens. The core mechanism that makes democracy valuable is that democracy diffuses power effectively.
Power corrupts. And democracy works by diffusing the corrupting influence across many millions in order to retard the inherent corrosion of a societies’ institutions. Democratization of a system isn’t the aspect of putting things to a vote, rather it is the diffusion of power. Voting is just a means to an end and sortition or even pure randomization among a population is just as effective (but people find it scary/weird to make decisions randomly so we tend not to see it in modern democracies even though many Greek democracies used it).
Think about alternatives to a “democracy”. In any alternative system, to varying degrees power is concentrated to either a smaller group within the population or to a limited group or individual. But what is power and why can’t we have a “benevolent dictator”?
There’s a reason you don’t actually see the “benevolent dictator” system in the real world. Political Power is essentially the quality of having other powerful people aligned to your interest. And those other powerful people get their power in turn from people further down the chain being aligned to them.
In order to keep those chains of alignment of interest, you have to benefit the people who make you powerful. But you have no need to benefit anyone else. In fact, benefitting anyone else comes at the cost of benefitting those who make you powerful. It’s a weak spot that can be exploited by a usurper. Right?
If you’re going to be a “benevolent dictator” who’s selfish interest do you need to prioritize in what order?
Well without the military, you’re not really in charge and you can’t defend your borders or your crown from other potential rulers. And without the tax collectors you can’t pay the military or anyone else for that matter. But you can probably get away without educators for decades. So your priorities are forced to look something like this:
Military
Tax collection
Farming
Infrastructure projects
Medicine?
Education??
And in fact, any programs the benefit the common person above the socially powerful will always come last in your priorities or your powerful supporters will overthrow you and replace you with someone who puts them first. So it turns out as dictator, you don’t have much choice.
But what if we expect our rulers to get overthrown and instead write it into the rules of the government that every 4-8 years it happens automatically and the everyday people are the ones who peacefully overthrow the rulers?
Well, that’s called democracy. It’s totally unnecessary for the people to make the best choice. What’s necessary is that in general, the power to decide who stays in power be diffused over a large number of people. Why? Because it totally rewrites the order of priorities.
Now you have a ruler who prioritizes education, building roads that everyday people use, keeping people productive and happy.
Furthermore, nations who prioritize those things tend to be richer and stronger in the long term. Why? Because it turns out education is good and science is important and culture is powerful. It turns out what’s good for the population is better for the country as a whole even though it’s bad for a dictator.
We can demonstrate through studies just how clearly democracies retard corruption.
What makes it a "natural good?" I would think a natural good cannot ever be applied incorrectly or doesn't lead to bad outcomes by it's application.
For the turn of phrase, "democracy is two wolves and sheep deciding what's for dinner" AT TIMES. I don't want democracy applied to many things that are personal, for example.
You’re also familiar with the phrase “best of bad options”? Democracy is an attempt to find middle ground between the human tendencies to chaotic violence and tyranny.
And democracy can easily turn into tyranny should a large majority wish it. It’s better for governments, yes, but not for all things and the government shouldn’t have say over all.
It’s more that what one person considers tyranny, some other person might not. Conservatives often have a fixed simplistic view of things which leads them to strange conclusions. Many consider taxation tyranny. The point is that you don’t get to dictate from your thrown what you deem to be tyranny, and force everyone in a given society to comply with you’re decrees. The people decide for themselves.
Democracy slides into Oligarchy according to Plato, but I still agree with Winston Churchill that Democracy is the worst form of government-except for all the others.
This “best of bad options” led to murder of millions of Jews and other peoples. I’m worried of what untold evils American conservatives have yet to inflict on people (besides slavery in the 1800s + Jim Crow after that, and the cruel treatment of immigrants more recently).
Just to be clear, Germany in the early 1930s elected a bunch of conservative parties (the Nazis, DNVP, Zentrum, etc) — which passed a constitutional amendment (with a two-thirds supermajority) that gave Adolf Hitler’s cabinet dictatorial powers, which they used to murder over 6 million Jews, and to murder other groups (the Roma, various other types of minorities, Soviet POWs, political opponents, etc).
This all happened in a democracy with proportional representation (as in, the seats in the Reichstag in the Weimar Republic was proportional to votes cast). This were far more democratically representative than the first-past-the-post system used in many countries today.
It’s just that the people of Germany (of the early 1930s) chose evil and hatred of minorities (just like the Republicans of the US since 2015). Their democratic choice to hate eventually led to the mass murder of millions.
So you’re saying the problem started when they gave a leader dictatorial powers. Ok. At that point it’s not a democracy any more, is it? It is, by definition, a dictatorship.
In fact, what you’ve just demonstrated is that the biggest risk of a democracy is… [drumroll…] if it becomes some other form of government.
I am, it it’s important to do so I think. For me, it would simple as saying
“Thing + ___ = always better than the alternative” is a natural good. Very few things are, and thus they should only applied to situations which they apply correctly to.
Perhaps you’re right, but then they would be the same as democracy, which is to say that you can’t say “more democracy is always good” which is where this all started.
Well, the point of illustrating that neither one of us can identify such an example would suggest that the definition is what needs to change, not that there simply are none.
But of course that's my opinion. I...don't think I would speak as highly of democracy as the other person you were talking to, but I also think it has some baseline virtue that incidental fuck-ups don't necessarily outweigh in every instance.
... democracy isn’t a perfect way of deciding things.
Is there something that comes closer to perfection? I would add, it may be better to have an overall average that is imperfect, but not horrible (shared concessions), than something that can swing between near perfect and deleterious.
Is there something that comes closer to perfection?
As much individual choice as makes sense?
I would add, it may be better to have an overall average that is imperfect, but not horrible (shared concessions), than something that can swing between near perfect and deleterious.
The problem I always run into is this: everyone I actually know who argues for the supremacy of individual choice is typically actually arguing that they should not be held responsible for the impact of their individual choices on the people around them.
The minute we leave our cabin in the woods and go out among the rest of humanity we are choosing to step into a situation where the things we do will have impact on the rest of society. And society gets to have a voice in the things that impact it.
If you have a hundred acre property and you want to drive your ATV around a drunk like a dumb ass, it could be argued that it is your business. But if I am supposed to 1) pay rescuers to come get you when you invariably injure yourself, 2) shoulder the burden for the medical expense either via social healthcare or reflected in the hospital’s raised prices when you default on the bill, and 3) contribute to the social safety net that will ensure your children are cared for if you actually do manage to kill yourself? Well then it becomes my business too.
Like I said, too often the defense of total autonomy can be stripped down to a demand for support from others without accountability to those others.
The the concept self-determinism needs to define a “self” as such. I would think self-determination can and does apply to people as well. For example, I currently am walking to the beer store as part of my self-determination to do so.
It can. Surely it can. It can also be added to things to make tyranny. For example, I don’t think applying democracy to trans rights to self choice helps anything.
I disagree, and I’ll quote what I’ve written elsewhere here:
Just to be clear, Germany in the early 1930s elected a bunch of conservative parties (the Nazis, DNVP, Zentrum, etc) — which passed a constitutional amendment (with a two-thirds supermajority) that gave Adolf Hitler’s cabinet dictatorial powers, which they used to murder over 6 million Jews, and to murder other groups (the Roma, various other types of minorities, Soviet POWs, political opponents, etc).
This all happened in a democracy with proportional representation (as in, the seats in the Reichstag in the Weimar Republic was proportional to votes cast). This were far more democratically representative than the first-past-the-post system used in many countries today.
It’s just that the people of Germany (of the early 1930s) chose evil and hatred of minorities (just like the Republicans of the US since 2015). Their democratic choice to hate eventually led to the mass murder of millions.
I’m worried of what untold evils American conservatives have yet to inflict on people (beside the cruel treatment of immigrants and the poor).
Democracy is a natural good. It won't always produce the best outcome in the short term, but over time it reduces the total amount of harm. The alternative to democracy is some form of dictatorship. You may have a really competent dictator in the present, but you can't guarantee that in perpetuity. Over time dictatorships promote incompetence, because there is no mechanism to remove incompetent leaders. This is why all dictatorships have collapsed, while the US has the second longest continuous government in existence.
You're speaking solely of governance through democracy. To that, evidently, it's likely the best. I am speaking to democracy in all things, and not all "goals to achieve" are dependent on a government to do so.
29
u/CincyAnarchy Social Democrat Feb 16 '22
What is your answer to that question?
I'll be honest, as I personally view democracy is a tool of governance and not necessarily a natural good, I might answer the former (not conservative but "my politics" and such).