Not a surprise, but interesting none the less.
In an ideal world, elections should be two things: free and fair. Every adult, with a few sensible exceptions, should be able to vote for a candidate of their choice, and each single vote should be worth the same.
Ensuring a free vote is a matter for the law. Making elections fair is more a matter for mathematicians. They have been studying voting systems for hundreds of years, looking for sources of bias that distort the value of individual votes, and ways to avoid them. Along the way, they have turned up many paradoxes and surprises. What they have not done is come up with the answer. With good reason: it probably doesn’t exist.
The many democratic electoral systems in use around the world attempt to strike a balance between mathematical fairness and political considerations such as accountability and the need for strong, stable government. Take first-past-the-post or “plurality” voting, which used for national elections in the US, Canada, India – and the UK, which goes to the polls next week. Its principle is simple: each electoral division elects one representative, the candidate who gained the most votes.
This system scores well on stability and accountability, but in terms of mathematical fairness it is a dud.
Our Founding Fathers and the Constitution they crafted did not take into account the corrosive anti-government effect of a Two Party System or the rise of Corporations both leading to a government bought and paid for by money not ideas.
We are at the beginning upward curve of the DIRECT influence of corporations on our daily affairs. Our society is asleep at the switch as the “bubble” of Corporate Control is starting to build.
Hold onto your socks.
@#11 Olo Baggins — well said.
One one hand, I agree with the notion that a large part (potentially the majority) of people are just too stupid, so I understand the notion of having a separation between the governing bodies and the people — thus a republic.
On the other hand, no one group ever has a sustainable monopoly on good principles and intentions (things change, and power corrupts). So I understand the need for “we the people” to have power — thus a democracy.
So while I currently support the Democratic party (even if aware of their shortcomings) I would support Republicans (or some specific candidates) if they weren’t so fake and disingenuous.
The Republicans of today don’t believe in Democracy but say it’s important to bring Democracy to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan? Please. They want small government? Then they should say they want to curb all spending, including military, social security and Medicare. They say they support federalism? Then how can their representatives be the “party of no” and vote as one block with one opinion, all the time, when conditions are different across states. Bah-humbug!
Part of the problem is reality is different than fiction. There’s no black and white in reality, only shades of gray, but complicated arguments and explanations are hard to sell to the masses, so politicians oversimplify and essentially lie. Well, wouldn’t it be better if we didn’t have to lie to get the votes? Well, take that one step further, if you think the country should be left unchecked to a small group of well-meaning individuals, go live in a dictatorship… Cuba is not too far away, I hear they have good cigars. Oh, you’re a libertarian that prays to Saint Ayn Rand (especially since the FICTION she wrote proves she was right — along with her spawn Alan Greenspan who is in big part to blame for putting our economy in this mess), you can go live somewhere with no taxes and no pesky laws — how about Somalia? What’s that? You believe in family values and religious morals? I guess you should go live in a country that completely abides by that kind of thing, how about Iran?
Arpie–what fiction did Ayn Rand write that proved she was right? My partial reading of most of her books showed her heroes were all criminals. What did I miss?
Bah,
Everyone’s got it wrong. The Foundation of our government right now is Oligarchy. The Democratic Republic is little more than window dressing not the window itself.
@#23 bobbo — I was being sarcastic, as in a work of pure fiction can’t prove anything in reality. (Arguably her “greed is good” theme has actually been proven false, given our current recession, no?) I’m still waiting for someone to tell me who cleaned the bathrooms in Galt’s Gulch…
Have you considered becoming a constitutional monarchy?
You get all the fun and fraud of elections but you also get a leader that is the idiot son of a previous leader.
#-Benjamin — The quote from Alexander Tytler that you brought up states “largess out of the public treasury.” Largess meaning money or gifts. The public votes on candidates that promise money or gifts. So if a candidate promises the public a tax rebate or cut, then he/she is offering money from the public treasury (tax pool).
A good example was during the last administration.
Bush Jr. ran for office promising tax cuts. The people voted him into office. He then provided rebate checks to the public. The rebate money came out of the public treasury.
Uncle Dave’s photo comment: “Democracy: A form of government where the leader is chosen by a popularity contest rather than ability to run the country.”
What an absolutely perfect description of Obama, but as we all know, Uncle Dave would never put Obama in a negative light. So he latches on to an obscure April 2010 article that never even mentions Obama.
Another example of classic politically-correct Uncle Dave reporting once again.
#27–bac==you make a common liberal error==thinking that the Fed/State gov money is somehow “theirs” or a “pool” and doesn’t come from the taxed people/wage slaves.
A better formulation of the largess of the BushCo Criminal Conspiracy for the Rich is: a tax cut with no reduction in services provided, or by the continued non-enforcement of criminal capitalist business activities, tax cut with decreased regulation.
#28–jb==I thought Obama showed a nice combo of both attributes. After McCain showed his “bad for America, do anything to get elected” unbridled personal ambition by selecting BarbieDoll, AND his statement that the economy was basically sound (trying to keep the sheep asleep) I thought Obama was clearly the better leader for America. We are only lucky that he won the popularity contest as well.
I disagree with all that is said. I think Democracy works great, especially when you have the backing of such powerful lobbyist around can has your hands tied. There’s nothing like being in a position where you can make a difference and yet are bound by the very things you would like to change.
Love this country, love the rich, love the fanatics.
Arpie==its very dangerous to put unnoted sarcasm on a blog. Just too hard to tell that from most of what the LIEberTARDIANS post with chest pounding. I don’t think you could say anything too stupid that BBoy wouldn’t give an amen to.
T-1: best thing you have ever posted: “There’s nothing like being in a position where you can make a difference and yet are bound by the very things you would like to change.” /// Depressing but true. Well Done.
bobbo said, “#27–bac==you make a common liberal error==thinking that the Fed/State gov money is somehow “theirs” or a “pool” and doesn’t come from the taxed people/wage slaves.”
Wow, we agree here. Taxes come from our money. The money we have left over after paying taxes is not a gift from the government. The government making direct payments to people and businesses (ie income redistribution and corporate welfare) is a largess people vote for themselves.
bobbo also said, “A better formulation of the largess of the BushCo Criminal Conspiracy for the Rich is: a tax cut with no reduction in services provided, or by the continued non-enforcement of criminal capitalist business activities, tax cut with decreased regulation.”
I agree that there should have been a reduction of services provided. Also a reduction of pork would have been needed too. Bush was not a small government President unless you compare him only to Obama.
As for deregulation, Clinton is the one who signed the repeal of Glass Steagal. (I read the wikipedia entry for Glass Steagal and agree it should not have been repealed.
BTW–can anyone state why Democracy is “unfair” and what the hey that has to do with “mathematics?” I don’t see the logic of the argument at all. I don’t even see the “real” idea behind the argument that would only need a word change to make it make sense.
Gobbledegook.
“Government determined by democractic voting majorities is not always what is best for the long term functioning of that government.” We can all agree with but thats not what the article says as best as I can determin. Or maybe that is what it is saying???
The Greeks wrestled with this informing us that a Benevolent Dictator was the best form of government except that in too often turned into tyranny. Always a tussle.
I have to ask about democracy.
In what nation are there only 2 parties?
Only 1.
ECA–good question. If you want to ignore all the “no power” other parties the USA does have then I would answer that Russia and other totalitarian regimes mascarading behind a party system often float out a second party for the illusion of a choice from the one party/one man rule.
What makes America “exceptional” is we have a two party system covering up the rule by the monied few. Corporatism if you will. Not quite a theftocracy but I think that will be in full view in a few more years. Such is our downward spiral with our totally corrupt congress at the reins.
Maybe picking a president should be based on who scores the highest in various aptitude tests, then those who scored the highest, let people vote their president as usual.
#25 Who cleaned the bathrooms and Galt’s Gulch? I assumed they are cleaned by the person who collects the high admission fees to use said bathrooms. They are all pay toilets, you see.
Now as per Anthem, you got assigned your job after schooling. Equality 7-2521 wanted to be a scientist, but the elders ruled “they” should be a street sweeper. “We assume that others are assigned to be bathroom cleaners.”
#23 “My partial reading of most of her books showed her heroes were all criminals.”
So you believe going on strike is criminal as well as saying the word “I”? Equality 7-2521 was criminal for saying the word “I” and wanting to be a scientist when he was assigned the job of street sweeper. Do you think it is wrong to better yourself instead of staying in a menial job? I suppose you think that Hank Reardon, Dagny Taggart, and Fransisco were criminals for going on strike.
The solution is simple.
Draft people into politics, just like the military, based on a defined criterion such as education level and IQ.
#38 CH, Who does the drafting? Most likely a panel of tyrants.
Benji–I was “mostly” thinking of the architect guy that blew up his designed building when the owner of it changed the “as built.”
Do you know the plot/theme of Fountain Head enough to parse me wrong?
Perhaps Atlas Shrugged is a better version of her “rational selfishness” but I used that book as a doorstop.