The facade of democracy

[mrswdk]

democracy means the rule by the majority and when there is no one with anything close to a clear majority the definitions are hard to maintain in the absolute.

Wrong and wrong.

In my previous post I cited Wikipedia

That's a funny coincidence. Roughly half the references I used in my master's thesis were Wikipedia.

[DoomYoshi]

democracy means the rule by the majority and when there is no one with anything close to a clear majority the definitions are hard to maintain in the absolute.

Wrong and wrong.

In my previous post I cited Wikipedia which cited Democracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary Webster says I am right. Webster is always right.

Webster is the second-worst popular dictionary in the world. The worst is the Swedish Academy dictionary which started publishing in 1898 and is still only up to the letter U.

[Metsfanmax]

The bigger facade has nothing to do with the proportional representation. The bigger facade is how voters routinely answer in polls that they don't like negative campaigns, yet in this election and in others negative campaigns are effective. Therefore, voters are shown to lie in polls and therefore the polls can't be trusted.

This is not a logically valid argument. Voters may not like negative campaigns, but that doesn't mean they aren't influenced by them. I may not like hearing that one of the candidates hates puppies, I may think it's a disgusting argument to make, but if you say it enough times I might nevertheless eventually start to think that the puppy-hating is more important than the fact that the opponent pointed it out. That doesn't mean I'm happy about the situation.

Also, this is confounded by the fact that we don't know if it was actually the negative campaigning being effective or it just happened that the party that won (for other reasons) also engaged in negative campaigning.

[DoomYoshi]

The bigger facade has nothing to do with the proportional representation. The bigger facade is how voters routinely answer in polls that they don't like negative campaigns, yet in this election and in others negative campaigns are effective. Therefore, voters are shown to lie in polls and therefore the polls can't be trusted.

This is not a logically valid argument. Voters may not like negative campaigns, but that doesn't mean they aren't influenced by them. I may not like hearing that one of the candidates hates puppies, I may think it's a disgusting argument to make, but if you say it enough times I might nevertheless eventually start to think that the puppy-hating is more important than the fact that the opponent pointed it out. That doesn't mean I'm happy about the situation.

So people are stupid, and can't be trusted to vote because the mind is susceptible to little tricks?

[Metsfanmax]

The bigger facade has nothing to do with the proportional representation. The bigger facade is how voters routinely answer in polls that they don't like negative campaigns, yet in this election and in others negative campaigns are effective. Therefore, voters are shown to lie in polls and therefore the polls can't be trusted.

This is not a logically valid argument. Voters may not like negative campaigns, but that doesn't mean they aren't influenced by them. I may not like hearing that one of the candidates hates puppies, I may think it's a disgusting argument to make, but if you say it enough times I might nevertheless eventually start to think that the puppy-hating is more important than the fact that the opponent pointed it out. That doesn't mean I'm happy about the situation.

So people are stupid, and can't be trusted to vote because the mind is susceptible to little tricks?

The mind is susceptible to tricks, but that doesn't mean people are stupid. There is an impressively long list of known cognitive biases, that affect people regardless of how smart they are.

[Dukasaur]

The bigger facade has nothing to do with the proportional representation. The bigger facade is how voters routinely answer in polls that they don't like negative campaigns, yet in this election and in others negative campaigns are effective. Therefore, voters are shown to lie in polls and therefore the polls can't be trusted.

This is not a logically valid argument. Voters may not like negative campaigns, but that doesn't mean they aren't influenced by them. I may not like hearing that one of the candidates hates puppies, I may think it's a disgusting argument to make, but if you say it enough times I might nevertheless eventually start to think that the puppy-hating is more important than the fact that the opponent pointed it out. That doesn't mean I'm happy about the situation.

So people are stupid, and can't be trusted to vote because the mind is susceptible to little tricks?

The mind is susceptible to tricks, but that doesn't mean people are stupid. There is an impressively long list of known cognitive biases, that affect people regardless of how smart they are.

Aye! And the worst part is, the smart ones are the worst. The stupid ones mostly know they're stupid, and they accept being corrected. The smart ones have excessive faith in their own infallibility, and will defend their cognitive biases to the death.

[Metsfanmax]

The bigger facade has nothing to do with the proportional representation. The bigger facade is how voters routinely answer in polls that they don't like negative campaigns, yet in this election and in others negative campaigns are effective. Therefore, voters are shown to lie in polls and therefore the polls can't be trusted.

This is not a logically valid argument. Voters may not like negative campaigns, but that doesn't mean they aren't influenced by them. I may not like hearing that one of the candidates hates puppies, I may think it's a disgusting argument to make, but if you say it enough times I might nevertheless eventually start to think that the puppy-hating is more important than the fact that the opponent pointed it out. That doesn't mean I'm happy about the situation.

So people are stupid, and can't be trusted to vote because the mind is susceptible to little tricks?

The mind is susceptible to tricks, but that doesn't mean people are stupid. There is an impressively long list of known cognitive biases, that affect people regardless of how smart they are.

Aye! And the worst part is, the smart ones are the worst. The stupid ones mostly know they're stupid, and they accept being corrected. The smart ones have excessive faith in their own infallibility, and will defend their cognitive biases to the death.

I don't agree with this statement in general. However, it is also not the main point of the discussion. The main point is that if we want to have any hope of salvaging representative democracy to be the system we really want it to be, we need to build safeguards into the political system that recognize these types of biases and protect against them in ways that still leave people the freedom to make rational arguments for their position. This seems to be a fairly difficult task when considering things like national elections. I emphasize that any argument that starts with "politicians are corrupt" is missing an important part of the story, namely that we get the politicians we deserve. The ones we deserve are the ones we are capable of electing given the actual understanding we can have of the relevant policy. I do not believe that most (or any) individuals are capable of understanding a large democratic nation well enough to determine which combination of policy ideas is optimal for it, because the system is too complex. This is a function of our limited intellect but also our limited time to understand and read about politics. BBS can say "voters should be more informed" all day long, but it doesn't much change the fact that most people have very little time in which to become informed, because they actually have to work and take care of their families.

So it is no wonder that we vote mostly based on values rather than on specific policy ideas, and therefore get party systems coalesced roughly around those values. It's just hopelessly daunting for me and most people to try to understand whether austerity is or is not a good budgeting idea to escape a recession when even professional economists have violent debates about it.

[Dukasaur]

I don't agree with this statement in general. However, it is also not the main point of the discussion. The main point is that if we want to have any hope of salvaging representative democracy to be the system we really want it to be, we need to build safeguards into the political system that recognize these types of biases and protect against them in ways that still leave people the freedom to make rational arguments for their position. This seems to be a fairly difficult task when considering things like national elections. I emphasize that any argument that starts with "politicians are corrupt" is missing an important part of the story, namely that we get the politicians we deserve. The ones we deserve are the ones we are capable of electing given the actual understanding we can have of the relevant policy. I do not believe that most (or any) individuals are capable of understanding a large democratic nation well enough to determine which combination of policy ideas is optimal for it, because the system is too complex. This is a function of our limited intellect but also our limited time to understand and read about politics. BBS can say "voters should be more informed" all day long, but it doesn't much change the fact that most people have very little time in which to become informed, because they actually have to work and take care of their families.

So it is no wonder that we vote mostly based on values rather than on specific policy ideas, and therefore get party systems coalesced roughly around those values. It's just hopelessly daunting for me and most people to try to understand whether austerity is or is not a good budgeting idea to escape a recession when even professional economists have violent debates about it.

See, I don't believe that the questions are so complex that the average person can't understand them, or would need more time than what he already takes to wonder about these issues. The "experts" make issues sound vastly more complex than they really are because that is a form of job security for them. If everyone took Macroeconomics 101 and found out how really straightforward a science it is, the guys pulling down 7-digit salaries at the Fed wouldn't be.

The only field I find really difficult to understand is yours. Most other things are really transparent to me.

[clangfield]

Results from today's British elections.

Percentage share of the vote:

Conservatives: 37%
Labour: 31%
UKIP: 13%
Liberal Democrats: 8%
SNP: 5%
Green Party: 4%
Plaid Cymru: 1%
Other: 1%

Percentage share of seats in Parliament:

Conservatives: 50.9%
Labour: 35.6%
SNP: 8.6%
Liberal Democrats: 1.2%
Plaid Cymru: 0.4%
UKIP: 0.1%
Green Party: 0.1%
Other: 2.9%

Western democracies - truly governments by the people, for the people!

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32633099

Can we introduce a more democratic system for the dice on CC, such that rolling three fives beats a 6 and a 1 ?

Just a point on first past the post - there was a quote from a former UK cabinet minister who was told by a European colleague that they were jealous of his government, because he was able to take away a European-agreed decision and know that it would be ratified by his parliament, without the horse-trading that would be necessary to get it past his own coalition.
First past the post isn't perfect, but it does deliver stability and, hopefully, longer term strategy.
The only real democracy is a referendum on every decision - it may well come to that one day, but personally I'd rather people who have been trained and educated in the relevant subjects taking the decisions than the sort of chavs we see on Jeremy Kyle.

[DoomYoshi]

If I wanted stability in my life, I'd go to prison.

[mrswdk]

Results from today's British elections.

Percentage share of the vote:

Conservatives: 37%
Labour: 31%
UKIP: 13%
Liberal Democrats: 8%
SNP: 5%
Green Party: 4%
Plaid Cymru: 1%
Other: 1%

Percentage share of seats in Parliament:

Conservatives: 50.9%
Labour: 35.6%
SNP: 8.6%
Liberal Democrats: 1.2%
Plaid Cymru: 0.4%
UKIP: 0.1%
Green Party: 0.1%
Other: 2.9%

Western democracies - truly governments by the people, for the people!

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32633099

Can we introduce a more democratic system for the dice on CC, such that rolling three fives beats a 6 and a 1 ?

Just a point on first past the post - there was a quote from a former UK cabinet minister who was told by a European colleague that they were jealous of his government, because he was able to take away a European-agreed decision and know that it would be ratified by his parliament, without the horse-trading that would be necessary to get it past his own coalition.
First past the post isn't perfect, but it does deliver stability and, hopefully, longer term strategy.
The only real democracy is a referendum on every decision - it may well come to that one day, but personally I'd rather people who have been trained and educated in the relevant subjects taking the decisions than the sort of chavs we see on Jeremy Kyle.

You think British ministers are people who have been trained and educated in the fields they manage?

Just as an example, Michael Gove - former Secretary of State for Education and incoming Secretary of State for Justice - has an undergraduate in English and spent a few years working as a journalist before entering politics. Professional or academic experience of either education or justice: 0.

[tzor]

So people are stupid, and can't be trusted to vote because the mind is susceptible to little tricks?

Precisely, how do you think a single Sith Lord could take down an entire republic? Cheap Jedi Mind Tricks.

[waauw]

So people are stupid, and can't be trusted to vote because the mind is susceptible to little tricks?

Precisely, how do you think a single Sith Lord could take down an entire republic? Cheap Jedi Mind Tricks.

well perhaps only little people should vote. Saruman had a hard time controlling dwarves and hobbits

[DoomYoshi]

The Sith don't use Jedi mind tricks. They use Sith chokings.

[Lootifer]

Why do we vote for people anyway?

Shouldn't we be voting for ideas?

[nietzsche]

Why do we vote for people anyway?

Shouldn't we be voting for ideas?

exactly, we have computers now, we should have direct democracy

[mrswdk]

The only real democracy is anarchy.

[nietzsche]

The only real democracy is anarchy.

shudup or I tell Serbia to come and kick your ass here too.

[mrswdk]

The only real democracy is anarchy.

shudup or I tell Serbia to come and kick your ass here too.

He already said he doesn't hit women. Most likely he'd kick your ass for bothering him.

[waauw]

Why do we vote for people anyway?

Shouldn't we be voting for ideas?

exactly, we have computers now, we should have direct democracy

and so hacktopia begins

[Arama86n]

We don't have that BS in Sweden thank god.
With 349 seats in Parliament, yes a party might juuust miss out on one seat. Skewing the number of seats by percent a little away from the actual percentage by the people's vote. But it's minimal. If you get 30% of the votes, your seat percentage should be within around 0.3% of that.

The UK and US systems seem rather questionable to me.

[macbone]

"In every free and deliberating society, there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties, and violent dissensions and discords; and one of these, for the most part, must prevail over the other for a longer or shorter time."

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."

"What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

[tzor]

By the way ...

THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE.
THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKSED LIKE.
THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKED LIKE.