tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post6259338742411718323..comments2024-03-18T18:14:34.278+00:00Comments on Stoat: Russell on Aristotle's PoliticsWilliam M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-64682148978659386252020-09-12T14:41:05.164+00:002020-09-12T14:41:05.164+00:00Thanks. fixed now. I'm not quite sure how that...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.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-32707849983538270522020-09-12T14:21:24.716+00:002020-09-12T14:21:24.716+00:00WMC,
Your 2nd link "What Is Populism? The Pe...WMC,<br /><br />Your 2nd link "What Is Populism? The People V. the People by Pierre Lemieux" appears to be broken ... <br />https://www.econlib.org/what-is-populism-the-people-v-the-people/<br />(replace "+" with "-" to get to the proper site)<br />Your URL is currently ... <br />http://econlib.org/what-is-populism-the+people+v+the+people/<br />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).<br />Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-53735125343991486102020-09-09T23:36:48.877+00:002020-09-09T23:36:48.877+00:00Actually, American history teaches us, first and f...Actually, American history teaches us, first and foremost, about the tyranny of Minoritarianism ... <br />American Civil War<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Eastern philosophy has not done any better, as it has just given us people, lots and lots of people.<br /><br />Note to self: Some, heck most, of the above my not be suitable for human consumption.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-7668752915986223832020-09-09T14:33:36.473+00:002020-09-09T14:33:36.473+00:00
Very close to tied for first at University of Bre...<br />Very close to tied for first at University of Bremen.<br /><br />https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/extent_n_running_mean_amsr2_previous.pngPhilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567197089095711546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-17356069534042129132020-09-09T13:38:58.927+00:002020-09-09T13:38:58.927+00:00And sea ice.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/c...And sea ice.<br /><br />https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/<br /><br />Extent of 3.8 million km^2 as of 8th Sept.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567197089095711546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-15059959398902941282020-09-09T10:33:42.917+00:002020-09-09T10:33:42.917+00:00"we don't want a 51%-takes-all society &q..."we don't want a 51%-takes-all society "<br /><br />Well no one is arguing thisNathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-48733195489205080392020-09-09T10:05:13.760+00:002020-09-09T10:05:13.760+00:00"Probably not in any clear fashion;"
No..."Probably not in any clear fashion;"<br /><br />No, indeed.<br />I looked it up om Wiki and it's not relevant as majority rule is not Majoritarianism.<br /><br /><br />Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-47000273279693253402020-09-09T09:12:44.185+00:002020-09-09T09:12:44.185+00:00> You haven't expressed what's so bad a...> You haven't expressed what's so bad about Majoritarianism at all<br /><br />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.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-74361128846102544152020-09-08T22:33:19.026+00:002020-09-08T22:33:19.026+00:00I also think that'Majoritarianism' as a ph...I also think that'Majoritarianism' as a philosophy is quite different to 'candidate with the majority of votes wins'Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-48939523455542913972020-09-08T22:30:27.905+00:002020-09-08T22:30:27.905+00:00"it would require votes to be counted per-boo..."it would require votes to be counted per-booth"<br /><br />Not sure why this is bad.<br />It's exactly what happens in Australia and works well. <br />Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-73838505994145756742020-09-08T21:56:40.955+00:002020-09-08T21:56:40.955+00:00"I can't see any advantages to changing t..."I can't see any advantages to changing to it"<br /><br />The most obvious reason is to increase the value of a vote.<br />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.<br />It also would help break up the duopoly, which means more choice. <br /><br /><br />"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."<br /><br />well, yes the EC is trivial compared to other problems, especially the fact it costs money to vote. It's also gerrymanded.<br /><br />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.<br />Why is majoritarianism worse than the gerrymanded EC?<br /><br />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.<br />Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-50246556665673809552020-09-08T20:01:06.621+00:002020-09-08T20:01:06.621+00:00Are we allowed to ask Everet's views on suppre...Are we allowed to ask Everet's views on suppressing the disenfranchisement of the transgerrymandered ?THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-74571681709615635172020-09-08T14:03:27.681+00:002020-09-08T14:03:27.681+00:00https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchis...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_the_United_States<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_disenfranchisement_in_the_United_States<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy<br /><br />Game. Set. Match. :)Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-31083440599649851732020-09-08T13:54:36.237+00:002020-09-08T13:54:36.237+00:00"Their representatives, re-elected repeatedly..."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."<br /><br />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.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-65543107362882746252020-09-08T13:47:33.523+00:002020-09-08T13:47:33.523+00:00"The Three-Fifths Compromise led to additiona..."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.<br /><br />.<br />.<br />.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />And so on right up to today. What part of this stuff don't you get? Seriously.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-55624054763595912512020-09-08T13:38:11.130+00:002020-09-08T13:38:11.130+00:00Everett F Sargent said...
"As I've said a...Everett F Sargent said...<br />"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."<br /><br />Three-Fifths Compromise<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise<br /><br />The so-called founders appear to have liked that one too. D'oh!<br /><br />Oh wait, you sort of dismissed that one, above, out of hand, from the æther as it were.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So in your own opinion you get to pick and choose, not a question but a abject statement of pure subjectivism. :(Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-49646520481278636062020-09-08T13:36:01.119+00:002020-09-08T13:36:01.119+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-20163422989045193322020-09-08T13:10:52.777+00:002020-09-08T13:10:52.777+00:00> Would it be a good system if the candidate th...> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-53492717073568442962020-09-08T12:35:31.585+00:002020-09-08T12:35:31.585+00:00Another example is the difference between Australi...Another example is the difference between Australian and UK democracy.<br />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. <br />And that's a better outcomeNathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-86664491663805916312020-09-08T12:31:51.083+00:002020-09-08T12:31:51.083+00:00So think about how this style of democracy would p...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.<br />And obviously poor.<br /><br />There's no proof that it's wrong, but it's less fair than simple majority.<br />What becomes important is how the votes are distributed, rather than how people vote.<br /><br />What is a fair system is a more important measure than whether the rules are being obeyed<br /><br /><br />Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-34840115196005718802020-09-08T12:08:30.874+00:002020-09-08T12:08:30.874+00:00No, it's not obvious. Indeed, I don't thin...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"?William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-69157449863692687022020-09-08T11:11:52.403+00:002020-09-08T11:11:52.403+00:00"as to *why* it isn't fair"
Is this..."as to *why* it isn't fair"<br /><br />Is this not obvious?<br />A system where you win a state means you get all the votes... <br />Pretty poor...Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139055978545659341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-80936109795075658982020-09-08T04:20:00.591+00:002020-09-08T04:20:00.591+00:00"I think you're wrong. I can see, as I sa..."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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-79085277064154038572020-09-07T22:18:49.700+00:002020-09-07T22:18:49.700+00:00One low-budget post-Athenian solution to America...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.THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-36930143919895729892020-09-07T15:48:06.884+00:002020-09-07T15:48:06.884+00:00"Consider carefully whether you wish to maint..."Consider carefully whether you wish to maintain it."<br /><br />Like most things, there is a reason for it.<br /><br />"that simple majoritarianism isn't a good idea."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I suspect I'm on your list. If I'm not, someone else is.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567197089095711546noreply@blogger.com