I'm (re)reading, for various purposes, Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. As with so many things outside my field, the problem is to find reliable opinions. I like Russell's text. Unlike many books discussing other philosophers, Russell is not afraid to speak his mind and has meaningful opinions1. Far too many others are so in awe of their subjects that they say nothing useful about them. Looking at the wiki article I can see he has wound up the usual suspects, which is a good sign. Who can forget the immortal The critic George Steiner, writing in Heidegger, described A History of Western Philosophy as "vulgar", noting that Russell omits any mention of Martin Heidegger.However, I think he gets Aristotle's Politics wrong. Firstly he misses its practical nature, in comparison the the idealism of Plato. There is far more discussion of what actually happened; and different constitutions. And secondly, he misses - I think due to his egalitarianism, or equalitarianism - what I was pushing before: that simple majoritarianism isn't a good idea.
Refs
* What Is Populism? The People V. the People by Pierre Lemieux
Notes
1. Example: I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant. Any person in the present day who wishes to learn logic will be wasting his time if he reads Aristotle or any of his disciples. None the less, Aristotle's logical writings show great ability, and would have been useful to mankind if they had appeared at a time when intellectual originality was still active. Unfortunately, they appeared at the very end of the creative period of Greek thought, and therefore came to be accepted as authoritative. By the time that logical originality revived, a reign of two thousand years had made Aristotle very difficult to dethrone. Throughout modern times, practically every advance in science, in logic, or in philosophy has had to be made in the teeth of opposition from Aristotle's disciples. Compare The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Wiki.
61 comments:
"that simple majoritarianism isn't a good idea."
Actually, it is a simple minoritarianism where ~40% (old white Eurotrash males) of the voting public control the majority in the US, it is also a representative republic and not a true democracy per se. The Three-Fifths Compromise ... many and various forms of voter suppression (e. g. giving essentially white women the right to vote was meant basically to offset the black male vote) ... all sorts of various tricks ensure that ~40% control the other ~60%. :(
This will be the 3rd time in 20 years that a POTUS is elected with less than a majority of the vote.
You can do an EC (Electoral College) spreadsheet to see just how difficult things can be for a true majority. James Carville suggested that ~16% of the voters elect 50 Senators. And that is a true statement ...
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50301751428_b3b32024c2_b.jpg
Note that states are ranked by population from least to most.
It takes a bit to understand the above plot from an EC perspective, but suffice it to say that the R's have a +14 Senator and +43 EC (votes for the first 35 States (+ DC) at which point it includes ~34% of the voter eligible population.
In a typical close EC election it only takes ~12-13% of total eligible voters (only half vote, the loser's votes don't count at all in the winner-take-all EC and excess votes for the winner also don't count, so half^half*half~eighth (that might not be immediately obvious but the votes that count is almost always around 13%)).
The EC plot also suggests why any POTUS election is only really fought in a small handful of States.
Oh and I hate the EC and always have. I want all individuals to vote and for a simple majority rule.
"This will be the 3rd time in 20 years that a POTUS is elected with less than a majority of the vote."
... should read ...
"This MAY be the 3rd time in 24 years that a POTUS is elected with less than a majority of the vote."
CIVIL RIGHTS IN AMERICA: RACIAL VOTING RIGHTS
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/tellingallamericansstories/upload/CivilRights_VotingRights.pdf
pages 16-18
"Why should the prez be the winner of the pop vote?"
There are things that are simply beyond you. Like getting a clue. Like American History. :(
I have never opined on how the UK or pretty much any other so-called democracy does its businesses, anywhere ever. As it is not my place to do so as I don't live there.
Perhaps you should read some more stuff?
"simple majoritarianism isn't a good idea."
Minority rule is a very bad idea. The smaller the minority, the worse the idea is.
I'll take the idea that just isn't good, thank you very much.
> Oh and I hate the EC and always have. I want all individuals to vote and for a simple majority rule.
Yes, I know. You and many others. But while you're very strong on saying so, you're very weak on explaining why. Going back to the irrelevant now 3/5 compromise indicates to me how weak your argument is. Other than "I'm right and you're wrong" do you have any arguments?
> Minority rule is a very bad idea.
Why? Why is, let us say, rule by 49% so much worse than 51%? Although of course that's not what you're offering. Given that only ~1/3 ever vote, you're offering, so to speak, the choice between rule by 32% or rule by 35%, both of which are the "very bad idea" you profess to dislike so much.
Why is a duck? I observe that ducks exist. But why?
A single person with all power might be wise and just, and the government slightly better. Or cruel, corrupt and incompetent at anything other than maintaining power. Or insane. The average of slightly better and beyond horrid is just horrid. Observation, I leave it to others to explain why.
Oh, and the problem of picking the next leader. One Emperor might be OK, but five is just a disaster.
Want a place to study? Roman Emperors. Starts with a large and fairly free and prosperous economy. Ends with serfdom, poverty and chaos.
The Roman Republic grew the largest state in the ancient world, and they did so by spreading rights and powers to all Citizens. Not equal, but widespread. The Emperors lost all of this: the economy, the rights of Citizens and eventually the Roman state.
Note that the early Emperors were constrained by the need to maintain the forms of the Republic. And the early Emperors were the best.
You might get to watch the fall of the American Republic, and the rise of the Trump Emperor. Elected by a minority of voters. Buy popcorn.
> A single person with all power...
No-one is proposing that, so your comments are irrelevant. Have another go?
"Minority rule is a very bad idea. The smaller the minority, the worse the idea is."
Want to disagree, or just dodge?
"You might get to watch the fall of the American Republic, and the rise of the Trump Emperor. Elected by a minority of voters." Buy popcorn.
The EC is a bad idea. See Trump The First.
I haven't seen your response to me pointing out that you're apparently endorsing minority rule yourself.
Oh? Did I miss a strawman?
Perhaps we're divided by a common language?
Our host could be expected to know that US presidential elections are far from "simple majoritarianism", since the process is one of baffling complexity.
As befits a system modified from 18th century English roots, the result appears to be that the votes of citizens are not equal, citizens in territories don't get a vote, and weight is effectively given to land area rather than population, following the splendid example set by Old Sarum. What could be fairer?
"Yes, I know. You and many others. But while you're very strong on saying so, you're very weak on explaining why. Going back to the irrelevant now 3/5 compromise indicates to me how weak your argument is. Other than "I'm right and you're wrong" do you have any arguments?"
I can go back even farther ...
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all MEN are created equal ... "
Voter suppression in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_suffrage_in_the_United_States
That is just a part of US history. In fact, the more important question is why did/do these things continue to happen, to this very day and into the future. The answer to that is the same as the answer to all such questions ... who controls what. D'oh!
Oh and please do explain your own POV as YOU started the "I'm right and you're wrong" twitter trolling to begin with in the 1st place.
In fact, give us your own form of governance AND you don't have to explain why, as these things are inherently subjective (e. g. philosophy and philosophical).
Queue up one Adam Smith in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
"Why should the prez be the winner of the pop vote?"
Dr. Connolley's trademark controversialism, but will he defend the alternative, giving the win to the loser of the vote?
Not so much, rather he will just ask what is wrong with giving the win to the loser of that vote.
Well, for a start, it makes a mockery of the whole idea of a vote, and shows contempt for "the general opinions of mankind."
Controversial opinions can be useful, but what if they are backed by neither logic nor fact? Frankly, I don't even see an opinion articulated or defended. A little more content would be appreciated.
However, he did remind me of how much I enjoyed Russell's history when I read it 5 decades or so ago. Maybe I should get another copy.
CIP,
No you have it all wrong. Some people should never vote because they are too stupid to do so
WLC's comeback is a weak and lame "I'm right and you're wrong" even though I put the necessary information right in front of his face.
Now we will never rid ourselves of the EC (not in my lifetime anyways if ever), but to consider the EC to be a better method for electing a POTUS then a simple majority vote is beyond me, if that is even WMC's position.
I'm not even sure it is a D or R thing, but the disenfranchised do see a difference, that much I do know.
FWIW: The two worst Presidents in my lifetime, W. Bush and Donald Trump were both minority Presidents.
10 Countries Besides the U.S. That Have Electoral Colleges
https://people.howstuffworks.com/10-countries-besides-us-have-electoral-colleges.htm
Additionally, some other countries — Botswana, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, South Africa and Suriname — simply allow their national assemblies to pick their presidents. But in 65 of the world's 125 democracies, the president — or the equivalent office — is directly elected by voters, according to the Pew Research Center, which notes that "no other democratic nation fills its top job quite the way the U.S. does, and only a handful are even similar."
There's a reason for that. "The U.S. Electoral College is such a departure from the basic tenets of democracy that it is not surprising other democratic nations have not adopted it," George C. Edwards III, a University Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University and author of the 2005 book, "Why the Electoral College is Bad for America," says in an email.
"We have it because of a peculiar set of circumstances, in which some delegates to the constitutional convention did not trust the people, some thought information was too limited, some wanted intermediaries (electors) between the people and the selection of the president, some feared the legitimacy of an elected executive, some were concerned about slavery and some had yet other motivations," Edwards explains. "None of these apply in other nations in the modern world — and none are applicable to 21st century America."
But even though the U.S. Electoral College hasn't been imitated, it's likely to continue as an anachronistic vestige of an earlier political environment.
That's because enacting a constitutional amendment to abolish it "would be next to impossible for the very reason that got it in there in the first place: the inordinate and undemocratic power given to low-population states," Christopher Beem, a political science professor at the Pennsylvania State University, explains via email. And he suggests that even if the institution was abolished, other problems might ensue. "Just as a pragmatic matter, what would we do if the presidential election is national and as close as it was in 2000 and 2016? Think of the fiasco in Florida and then imagine that on a national scale."
Small problem there, Gore won by over half a million votes (543,895) so hardly a Florida situation, and Hillary won by over 2.8 million votes (2,868,686) so basically a non-sequitur for both, as in we will cross that bridge if we ever have to cross it in the 1st place.
Small Hands is actually encouraging others to commit voter fraud. I asked myself that exact question several months ago. How good is the authenticity of the mail-in ballot? Is it as good as the $100US dollar bill? Could another nation-state produce a passable forgery. Perhaps.
But that Small Hands and his warped sense of privilege and projection and narcissism and paranoia and anti-societal behaviors, only a nutbar would want his own illegal prophecy fuckfilled. Look see, voter fraud, I told you so, even though it has never occurred before on such a massive several orders of magnitude scale.
Actually, all Small Hands needs is one fraudulent vote, because if only one is known to be fraudulent, no telling how many millions of other votes were fraudulent (he actually has already tried this trick for California in the previous election).
Here is another illegal thing that Small Hands will suggest ...
(1) Vote by mail
(2) On Election Day (or earlier) show up to vote in person
(3) The poll taker tells them that they have already voted by mail
(4) Claim that there must be an error and ask for a provisional ballot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_ballot
(5) Vote for Small Hands a 2nd time
(6) When the Feds come knocking, claim ignorance as you thought is was the 2020 Census
Note to self: The above voter lives in a very deep red (no chance) or blue (sure chance) state, but still would have voted for Biden regardless. But they thought if Trump wants voter fraud, then give him voter fraud by voting for him twice.
Small Hands get doubled counted over Biden's double count by two-four orders of magnitude. A crook such as Small Hands is so deserving of such a crooked payback.
Oh and don't let this cat out of the proverbial bag so to speak. Keep this public disclosure sekrit.
"Minority rule is a very bad idea. The smaller the minority, the worse the idea is."
"Why? Why is, let us say, rule by 49% so much worse than 51%? Although of course that's not what you're offering. Given that only ~1/3 ever vote, you're offering, so to speak, the choice between rule by 32% or rule by 35%, both of which are the "very bad idea" you profess to dislike so much."
That is either missing my point by choice or error.
There are slightly bad ideas, sorta bad ideas, bad ideas, really bad ideas, truly bad ideas, crazy bad bad bad ideas, and Donald Trump being King. Caligula vs Trump? Hard to say.
Rule by 35% is likely very slightly better than rule by 32%. More loyalty, less fear.
Iceland was once (starting in 930AD) ruled by the Althing being at that time an assembly of 39 district Chieftains plus nine additional members and the Lawspeaker. This is a far better government than a King, but has some real draw backs for those not already wealthy and powerful. Bad can be better than worse. Now the Althing has a Party-list proportional representation, which is better than the USA's crazy system. Or for that matter, the UK's first past the post system.
Why is larger better? Governments exist because of loyalty and fear. Governments that rule mostly by fear often make decisions that hurt the vast majority of people, the country as a whole and are just evil.
Governments that rule mostly by loyalty must try to find decisions that benefit the majority of the country and the country as a whole. While evil can still happen, especially to people outside the majority or the country, it is less common.
> the votes of citizens are not equal,
A caricature, and not an informative one. There are many situations in which the votes of citizens are "not equal"; indeed, it is the norm.
> explain your own POV
I already have, I believe. In terms of complaining about the electoral college, I think it is almost entirely people disliking a system that currently disadvantages their own favoured party; there is little principled opposition and I have not yet seen anyone advance a principle, other than majoritarianism, which the US constitution doesn't endorse. In terms of a favoured system of govt, as I've said many times before, it is hard to see a good one, which is why I'd favour a govt with as few powers as possible: for example Trump's protectionism is bad, but the Dems opposition is weak, because they'd be protectionist too. Other hints are available in the linked post about Aristotle's poltics.
> will he defend the alternative, giving the win to the loser of the vote?
If those are the rules the election is run under, then yes: the winner is the person who wins by the rules, not the person who "wins" by not-the-rules.
> it makes a mockery of the whole idea of a vote
I take that for a defence of your preferred system of the majority system. So, you get credit for at least offering something amounting to a reason. But I don't think it stands up: there is a process, conducted according to fairly simple rules (whatever DS may claim) and that process isn't mocked; it just isn't the one you prefer. You say that was only the start of your reasons: would you care to offer more?
> But in 65 of the world's 125 democracies, the president — or the equivalent office — is directly elected by voters
True. But in many of them, the president isn't important. Quote that I saw recently: "I want America to be like Switzerland, where no-one even cares who the president is".
> even if the institution was abolished, other problems might ensue.
Well, duh. The electoral college is the least of the USA's problems. You have a supine Congress failing to do it's duty to rein in the executive. And you have a foolish partisan entitled electorate that votes in supine Congresses and fails to hold them to account.
> Minority rule is a very bad idea
That reminds me to correct you: I'm not sure if it's language or a genuine mistake. You have, of course, neither minority nor majority rule: you have a representative democracy, as we have. Systems where people think "we won, so we have all the power" go the way of banana republics. Your elected representatives "rule" for all of you, not just a minority. I think you're kinda headed that way: both R's and D's are starting to think about their side ruling for them. This is a failure of your civic education, and your intelligentsia, which has no time to explain such matters being too busy with Woke drivel.
Nonetheless, you fail to rebut my point: your next Prez will have approximately 1/3 of the vote, and so by your terms will inevitably be a "minority" ruler.
Your "point" is missing my point.
49.999% isn't exactly minority rule in the same exact way that single person is minority rule, now is it?
I see shades of gray... and sometimes even colors... Do you?
Oh, and Arctic Sea Ice. NSIDC shows 4 million km^2, a solid second.
> I see shades of gray...
This is politics. Everything is gray. What isn't clear, if you're so interested in subtlety, is why in your view 32% of the vote is very bad, but 34% is really good.
So, come on ye childhood heroes!
Won't you rise up from the pages of your comic-books, your super crooks
And show us all the way?
Well, make your will and testament
Won't you join your local government?
We'll have Superman for president
Let Robin save the day
You put your bet on number one and it comes up every time
The other kids have all backed down and they put you first in line
And so you finally ask yourself just how big you are
And you take your place in a wiser world of bigger motor cars
And you wonder who to call on
So, where the hell was Biggles when you needed him last Saturday?
And where were all the sportsmen who always pulled you though?
They're all resting down in Cornwall
Writing up their memoirs for a paperback edition
Of the Boy Scout manual
"I already have, I believe. In terms of complaining about the electoral college, I think it is almost entirely people disliking a system that currently disadvantages their own favoured party; there is little principled opposition and I have not yet seen anyone advance a principle, other than majoritarianism, which the US constitution doesn't endorse. In terms of a favoured system of govt, as I've said many times before, it is hard to see a good one, which is why I'd favour a govt with as few powers as possible: for example Trump's protectionism is bad, but the Dems opposition is weak, because they'd be protectionist too. Other hints are available in the linked post about Aristotle's poltics."
Abjectly not so. Your own biases of American history are showing through here. You should at least admit the obvious. Then do a lot of reading on American history.
Oh and I don't mean reading books about The Lost Cause ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
Or watching Ken Burns The Civil War (miniseries) ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civil_War_(miniseries)
It has always been about disenfranchisement. Period. Full stop. Always.
There can be no side for free and open elections, elections that remove as much of the "who controls what" as is possible. Term limits. No lobbying. No private sector jobs that benefit from previous high level government service. It is an effin' wish list towards a more perfect union and to fully honor the original intents of an open and free democracy. :(
Oh and the D's don't control the Senate. Rather hard for the D's to do anything with only the lower house. D'oh!
Politics for the fascists is black and white. Looks like you want to twist the discussion in black and white. Are you a fascist?
"Minority rule is a very bad idea. The smaller the minority, the worse the idea is."
Rule by 32% of the population is bad, and 34% is slightly less bad.
Feel free to discuss what I'm saying. Please avoid straw men.
"Nonetheless, you fail to rebut my point: your next Prez will have approximately 1/3 of the vote, and so by your terms will inevitably be a "minority" ruler."
Absolutely effin' wrong! The correct answer is very much closer to 13%, the EC was designed that way, you said so yourself.
"You have a supine Congress failing to do it's duty to rein in the executive. And you have a foolish partisan entitled electorate that votes in supine Congresses and fails to hold them to account."
No seriously? But you can't even get that one right. Currently the only mission of the Senate is to put in place conservative judges BECAUSE of Congressional gridlock (can't get a decent piece of legislation passed but somehow they (meaning the so-called deficit hawk R party BS) always run up the deficit).
"you have a representative democracy"
Effin' dead wrong again. Go figure.
We are a so-called representative REPUBLIC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
So now, let's review, over the post WWII era almost all EC's represent a minority of ~13% of eligible registered voters (I have a spreadsheet (it is now over a decade old) that showed the actuals, perhaps it is time to update it to circa 2016). Those are the simple rules you are referring to.
Oh and it is your blog, but you claiming some sort of self proclaimed victory dance is really rather funny. Kind of like Cartman South Park funny.
"Systems where people think "we won, so we have all the power" go the way of banana republics."
Well of course. no argument their, welcome to the Banana Republic of America (aka BRA).
What is really extra funny here is that I know that I can take a much bigger crap on my own homeland that you can only imagine in your wildest dreams. A crap bigger than Bono or Randy Marsh can only be or dream of ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Crap
I think a Churchill quote might fir here;-
"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.… "
29,847,550 votes needed to elect a President of the United States, in 2016.
136,669,276 votes counted in 2016.
https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote
Notice that the title is wrong. 27% is based on counting largest states first. Counting smallest states first gives a lower total, as the article points out.
As small states have been losing population might even be less now.
29,847,550 votes needed to elect a President of the United States, in 2012.
> Politics for the fascists is black and white. Looks like you want to twist the discussion in black and white. Are you a fascist?
This I think is both stupid and offensive. Consider carefully whether you wish to maintain it.
WC - " your next Prez will have approximately 1/3 of the vote"
Seems unlikely. Last time Trump got 46.1% and Hillary 48.2%. Are you expecting a big vote for Kanye?
WC - "...da rulz"
Such debate as there is is not about whether Trump won by "the rules" but about whether the rules are fair, reasonable, and appropriate. But you are the one who suggested that giving the win to someone other than the winner of the popular vote was appropriate.
From an outsiders POV (Australian) the thing that is poor in the US voting system appears to be the difficulty in actually voting. I'd be clearing that up before messing with the Electoral College.
Make it a right to vote, by giving people (paid) time off work. Increase the number of voting centres, so people don't have to wait for hours. Most importantly though take away the Govts ability to gerrymander.
I think you'll find you get more people voting and get a more representative result.
I think also the aims of a fair democracry should be more than 'winning by the rules' - especially when the rules are poor. Leads to gaming the rules.
We had a situation in the Senate here in Australia where individuals were profiting but providing 'advice' on how to game the rules and get people elected with less than 1% of the vote (you normally need more than 12%). We were big enough to realise that was a poor outcome (despite 'winning by the rules') so we changed the rules.
Nathan - + & +
> Last time Trump got 46.1% and Hillary 48.2%.
I was reckoning about 50-50, on a 2/3 turnout. That's slightly optimistic; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections tells me it was 55%; so closer to 1/4 each.
> but about whether the rules are fair, reasonable, and appropriate. But you are the one who suggested that giving the win to someone other than the winner of the popular vote was appropriate.
I think you're wrong. I can see, as I said above, a lot of people complaining that the EC isn't fair, or somesuch; but very little debate on the substance, as to *why* it isn't fair. Also, the rule - the EC - that' I'm defending is not "giving the win to someone other than the winner of the popular vote". Having a rule that says "whoever gets the least votes, wins" - would be silly. Instead, the EC's rule is a different scheme, whose details I'm sure you're familiar with. That rule doesn't coincide with "winning the popular vote", as you know.
> the difficulty in actually voting
I'd be happy to add that to my "The electoral college is the least of the USA's problems" section. However, I'm doubtful that your "you get more people voting" is substantively correct; those 45% who could vote, but don't, don't come from that.
> the aims of a fair democracry should be more than 'winning by the rules'
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If it's just "the rules should be fair", then see above.
"Consider carefully whether you wish to maintain it."
Like most things, there is a reason for it.
"that simple majoritarianism isn't a good idea."
So there is some group that doesn't get to vote. Or who's vote isn't the same as someone else's vote. If you have any other meaning, please state it.
I suspect I'm on your list. If I'm not, someone else is.
One low-budget post-Athenian solution to American electoral woe and low turnout might be to have each state select two qualified Grand Jury members by lot, , and stage a Presidential Election By Jury.
"I think you're wrong. I can see, as I said above, a lot of people complaining that the EC isn't fair, or somesuch; but very little debate on the substance, as to *why* it isn't fair."
I can quite easily concede the nature of the EC (winner of each entity takes 100% of that entities where i would prefer a proportional split or a much simpler national popular vote, essentially it boils down to a states' right issue as any state could do proportional distribution but red states would never go for that idea due to their innate need for voter suppression and/or disenfranchisement). Complaints about fairness of voting is the real issue with the EC merely playing a role as one vehicle of fairness complaints.
However, there are state laws passed every year making the vote either easier or tougher to obtain. For example, giving the vote to those convicted of a felony in Florida.
Everything over here is about disenfranchisement. The main reason that the EC gains little traction is almost entirely due to its longevity and the fact that it disproportionately favors rural states, regardless of party affiliation. The current alignment is almost certainly due to the Voting and Civil Rights Acts passed by LBJ in 1964-5 and a subsequent SCOTUS decision wrt the Voting Rights Act.
Note to self: I hope that I have not moved the goal posts too far, but if I have then it was more an issue of fully flushing out this idea called fairness. Word? Disenfranchisement.
"as to *why* it isn't fair"
Is this not obvious?
A system where you win a state means you get all the votes...
Pretty poor...
No, it's not obvious. Indeed, I don't think it is true. Your argument is "A system where you win a state means you get all the votes..." but that's not actually even an argument, which is why you trailed off. The obvious counter is: if you divide up the country into arbitrary units, and allow each unit to decide how to allocate the vote from that unit, seems fair. Perhaps you'd like to extend your argument past "it is obvious"?
So think about how this style of democracy would play out in your elections for your local MP. Would it be a good system if the candidate that got the most votes at a booth, gets all the votes in the booth. That is a poor system.
And obviously poor.
There's no proof that it's wrong, but it's less fair than simple majority.
What becomes important is how the votes are distributed, rather than how people vote.
What is a fair system is a more important measure than whether the rules are being obeyed
Another example is the difference between Australian and UK democracy.
In Australia we have preferential voting. So the winner is the candidate who wins more than 50% according to how the preferences are distributed. It's not the first past the post system. This enables consensus candidates to get elected. It's not right or wrong, but it's better because the candidate is more likely to have more than50% support.
And that's a better outcome
> Would it be a good system if the candidate that got the most votes at a booth, gets all the votes in the booth. That is a poor system.
I can't see any advantages to changing to it, and some disadvantages (it would require votes to be counted per-booth) but overall it would make little difference to the fairness.
As I've said above, I think all this EC stuff is trivial compared to the other problems the USA has; most obviously the failure of civic education and the coming of belief in majoritarianism, which the founders correctly disliked.
Everett F Sargent said...
"As I've said above, I think all this EC stuff is trivial compared to the other problems the USA has; most obviously the failure of civic education and the coming of belief in majoritarianism, which the founders correctly disliked."
Three-Fifths Compromise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
The so-called founders appear to have liked that one too. D'oh!
Oh wait, you sort of dismissed that one, above, out of hand, from the æther as it were.
Very poor execution there. Like I have said above, at least try to read some American history. But then again you will not and in the end I really could care less.
So in your own opinion you get to pick and choose, not a question but a abject statement of pure subjectivism. :(
"The Three-Fifths Compromise led to additional representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 out of 240 instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had additional influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.[20] Along with this must be considered the number of slave and free states, which remained mostly equal until 1850, safeguarding the Southern bloc in the Senate as well as Electoral College votes.
.
.
.
After the Reconstruction Era came to an end in 1877, however, the former slave states subverted the objective of these changes by using various strategies to disenfranchise their black citizens, while obtaining the benefit of apportionment of representatives on the basis of the total populations. These measures effectively gave white Southerners even greater voting power than they had in the antebellum era, inflating the number of Southern Democrats in the House of Representatives as well as the number of votes they could exercise in the Electoral College in the election of the president."
And so on right up to today. What part of this stuff don't you get? Seriously.
"Their representatives, re-elected repeatedly by one-party states, controlled numerous chairmanships of important committees in both houses on the basis of seniority, giving them control over rules, budgets and important patronage projects, among other issues. Their power allowed them to defeat federal legislation against racial violence and abuses in the South,[25] until overcome by the civil rights movement."
For tomorrow's American History lesson we will discuss post-1965 disenfranchisement. Be prepared for you final exam titled "Why the fuck do you continue to ignore the bleeding obvious lessons history teaches" anyways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_disenfranchisement_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Game. Set. Match. :)
Are we allowed to ask Everet's views on suppressing the disenfranchisement of the transgerrymandered ?
"I can't see any advantages to changing to it"
The most obvious reason is to increase the value of a vote.
at the moment votes lose value quickly, alternate methods like preferential voting mean an individual vote retains it's value for longer and the winning candidate is longer to more closely resemble the will of the people.
It also would help break up the duopoly, which means more choice.
"As I've said above, I think all this EC stuff is trivial compared to the other problems the USA has; most obviously the failure of civic education and the coming of belief in majoritarianism, which the founders correctly disliked."
well, yes the EC is trivial compared to other problems, especially the fact it costs money to vote. It's also gerrymanded.
You haven't expressed what's so bad about Majoritarianism at all, and your Aristotle post didn't either. It was more about one dollar one vote, which apparently didn't mean one dollar one vote... In fact it was never described as to what it meant.
Why is majoritarianism worse than the gerrymanded EC?
I think you should take a few steps back and maybe consider what is the point of a representative democracy. Start from that point and see if the US system is less suitable than other systems.
"it would require votes to be counted per-booth"
Not sure why this is bad.
It's exactly what happens in Australia and works well.
I also think that'Majoritarianism' as a philosophy is quite different to 'candidate with the majority of votes wins'
> You haven't expressed what's so bad about Majoritarianism at all
Probably not in any clear fashion; it is a keyword, after all. If you're interested, you should be able to find any number of people, including the founders, explaining the problem better than I can. Aristotle also explains it; the problem isn't new, after all: we don't want a 51%-takes-all society (or, given voter turn-outs, a 25%-takes-all). Govt is supposed to be by consent, where possible.
"Probably not in any clear fashion;"
No, indeed.
I looked it up om Wiki and it's not relevant as majority rule is not Majoritarianism.
"we don't want a 51%-takes-all society "
Well no one is arguing this
And sea ice.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Extent of 3.8 million km^2 as of 8th Sept.
Very close to tied for first at University of Bremen.
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/extent_n_running_mean_amsr2_previous.png
Actually, American history teaches us, first and foremost, about the tyranny of Minoritarianism ...
American Civil War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
Our so-called founding fathers were s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o worried about the so-called "tyranny of the majority" that they somehow forgot that an opposite and equal force which they purposefully gave to the minority, call that one the "tyranny of the minority" directly led to the American Civil War.
But I do like the pejoratives, minoritarianism and majoritarianism. The US is once again at a somewhat similar minoritarianism crossroad, where the "tyranny of the minority" is rather plain for all to see.
Old white male Eurotrash minority aka Crackers aka racists aka sexist aka xenophobia aka white trash aka homophobia aka sycophants ... aka you name it and they will, or have, done it.
Western philosophy gave us the American Civil War and not one, but two, World Wars and so-called raping of the rest of the world through so-called Empires.
At one end of the scale you have war and/or oppression at the other end of the scale we have so-called thinkers living off of the so-called doers. Sweet.
Eastern philosophy has not done any better, as it has just given us people, lots and lots of people.
Note to self: Some, heck most, of the above my not be suitable for human consumption.
WMC,
Your 2nd link "What Is Populism? The People V. the People by Pierre Lemieux" appears to be broken ...
https://www.econlib.org/what-is-populism-the-people-v-the-people/
(replace "+" with "-" to get to the proper site)
Your URL is currently ...
http://econlib.org/what-is-populism-the+people+v+the+people/
Your so-called Turing test sort of worked. as I am not a computer or an AI, if the simple replacement led me nowhere then I would have quit (and just said your URL is broken).
Thanks. fixed now. I'm not quite sure how that went wrong, since I cut-n-pasted it; perhaps they renamed it. Still, it's good to know that people at least follow some of these things.
Post a Comment