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.
#- Bobbo — I will try to clarify a point then it will be dropped.
The quote that Benjamin stated in a post used the phrase ‘public treasury’. I took this to mean that the money the government took in through taxes is the public treasury. Public refering to the people of the country. No where did I assume that tax revenue was the government’s money. The public treasury is the people’s money that is then distributed by the government to various things.
#24 Breetai
You are on the right road.
The Government of The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. Nothing else.
It is based on an oligarchic system (a oligarchy is the rule by an elite group) with a mixture of democratic, socialist and communist reformations.
Originally the elite group were Caucasian, European, Protestant land owners.
As time went along that became simply the wealthy. (As it always does in societies). To now it is a plutocratic oligarchy.
People have NEVER been able to vote for just anyone. The candidates have always been a select group put forth by a small percentage of the population. (Caucuses)
The majority only gets a symbolic vote for whomever these small groups allow to become candidates. Now the ILLISION is that these small groups “speak” for the great unwashed masses. But as with any illusion, it is not real.
That is The Republic the US has, and is the model for many republics around the globe.
Cursor_
bac–I think money held by the government in its treasury “IS” the governments money. It may also have other characteristics like being held in trust or whatever flowers you want to sprinkle around.
I’ve reread the thread. Kinda hard to really pin point what larger point any of us is making? ((I hate it when that happens.))
Largess? Government “giving” money or tax breaks? I agree. Lets drop it.
So, why is Democracy always mathematically unfair?
#40, Never read the Fountainhead. I just read Anthem, Atlas Shrugged, and the Virtue of Selfishness.
The behavior of Goldman Sachs was not selfishness; it was looting. She did not like the idea of looters.
My preference for a voting system that would produce more generally acceptable election outcomes would be to use a Borda Count.
#45 What if we just voted for people who sat on a board to choose our leader by voting. We could call the board the Electoral College or something.
#45–SL==very clever. You reference the Borda Count developed by a French Mathematician. Tangential to my question, but still clever.
Benjamin–I agree the activities of Goldman Sachs was criminal not selfish. But what are we to make of Ayn Rand adherents who are against reforming the system that allows selfish as well as criminal? Would any proposal you make address the criminal yet exempt the selfish?
Why can’t you and other Objectivists broaden the context and see that such selfishness can hardly avoid criminality?
#47 bobbo said, “Why can’t you and other Objectivists broaden the context and see that such selfishness can hardly avoid criminality?”
There are different kinds of selfishness. In the Bible, hoarding wealth (the parable of the rich farmer, and the parable of the rich man ) is called selfishness. Using wealth (parable of the talents) and charity is emphasized.
In Objectivism selfishness is a virtue. It means to build wealth that is yours to control. It also means living for yourself and not living for another. Charity is done because you want the benefits (good feelings).
Criminal selfishness is cheating people. That means voting yourself a high salary despite poor performance or purposefully buying and selling debt that you know is bad. Lying on financial statements is criminal and it cheats people.
I think you are mainly focused on Rand’s mistaken believing that people are automatically ethical. You need to be fair dealing to be virtuously selfish.
Dagny was angry with her brother for getting regulations enacted that put her competitor out of business because it was cheating and she didn’t have the capacity to take over her competitor’s business.
Benjamin–good fair review. Good that those distinctions are made by the Master–but words/teachings are always misconstrewed==or as nicked: too often turned into dogma. And when someon calls themselves “a follower of xyz” they are almost always following dogma, not the complexity of the original teachings.
I don’t mean to speak in allusion to the teaching of Jesus and would have to think about that some more.
===time passes====His teachings were “simple” but somewhat difficult to implement being in conflict with one another and basic healthy human nature, but simple enough. The dogma I see with religion is actually very similar to any other kind of dogma. That happens when a sentence or two, an single idea is taken, as standing on its own when that sentence, that idea, is but a part of the whole. Hard to be dogmatic/start a religion if you speak at/act at booklength and not bumpersticker length.
We emote in dogmatic terms, think in paragraph, live in books.
#49 Sounds like we agree somewhat. Even Jesus had to deal with people who were “following dogma, not the complexity of the original teachings.”
Ayn Rand was admittedly a crazy woman, but I agree with some of her teachings. Obviously as a Christian, I find some of her beliefs (no pun intended) objectionable.
#49 “Hard to be dogmatic/start a religion if you speak at/act at booklength and not bumpersticker length.”
I agree, but that is why Christians have a book.
I would be all for landowners and their spouses being the only ones with power to vote, especially in regards to property taxes. People who are unable to contribute to the tax rolls, vote yes to every increase and millage that comes down the pike.
In the end, I just pass the cost increase to my tenants, who frown every time a tax comes up.
I still don’t get the idea that people believe its the government’s money. As bobbo said; “I think money held by the government in its treasury “IS” the governments money.” The money belongs to its citizens, not the government.
#51, I pay property taxes indirectly through my landlord. I am intelligent enough to know my rent will go up in response to any tax increase. Your ideas on who should get to vote are old fashion. I also know that corporate taxes increase the costs of goods and services. The consumer, not the corporation pays those taxes.
#52, idea may be old fashioned but that does not mean its wrong. I doubt most of my renters understand that every time a new millage or tax (no such thing as a renewal)comes up, their rent will increase. The ability to think on issues of taxation, would require a foundation in economics.This foundation is impossible since the government controls public education.
To be honest the increase I do will exceed what the tax requires. I am not doing extra paperwork without compensation.
#34 ECA for the win
“I have to ask about democracy.
In what nation are there only 2 parties?”
If anti-trust laws applied to political parties, the Republican and Democratic parties would be forced to break up into multiple parties.
This 2-party oligopoly isn’t doing the country much good when each party is funded by international corporations seeking to loot the nation and have laws written on their behalf.
Plus it used to be it was uncommon for wealthy people to become president and now virtually all the candidates for the highest office are wealthy.
#54, antitrust laws have also been made to not apply to labor unions, which are the epitome of collusion that not only actively seeks to restrict competition from non-union labor, but also use force and other forms of intimidation to enforce discipline within.
The government selectively choses to impose itself on people’s lives? Say it ain’t so…
#35,
Yep..
But I find it interesting that we can have 2 parties..
BOTH say they are THIS and THIS, and 100 million people can agree with them.
100million persons in 2 groups.
That can AGREE on anything is surprising.
Why hasnt other groups come up?
If you want to know, They have.
And any group that Tries to get Up and running, ends up being Beat down with Regulations on HOW they can BE a candidate.
This nation has BLACK BALLED, group names that include Communism, Socialist, Nazi..Even GREEN has a hard time.
If you look, as you mentioned, there are Hundreds of smaller groups. so we get..
50 million republican
50 million democratic
200 million OTHER.
Wiki:
“A republic government is a type of government where the citizens choose the leaders of their country [1] and the people (or at least a part of its people)[2] have an impact on its government.[3][4] The word “republic” is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as “a public affair”.”
WHERE does it say CONSERVATIVE?
“Democracy is a political government carried out either directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (Representative democracy). The term is derived from the Greek: δημοκρατία – (dēmokratía) “rule of the people”,”
And 1/3 of the USA votes?
Democrat/democratic
“The Democratic Party is one of two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Republican Party. The party’s modern liberal platform is largely considered center-left in the U.S. political spectrum”
“Traditionally, the Left includes progressives, social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists.[2][3][4][5] The Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, monarchists, nationalists and fascists.”