4 ms·

>wouldn't every candidate attempt to win their elections by appealing to the lowest common denominator? I think that's sort of how democracy is supposed to wor

>wouldn't every candidate attempt to win their elections by appealing to the lowest common denominator? I think that's sort of how democracy is supposed to work. Politicians win when they can convince more people than anyone else. It's like that famous quote: “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”. Yes, everything would be better if countries were run by benevolent geniuses who always implemented the right policies even if they weren't popular. But failing that impossible paradise, democracy is the best option. And if only some people vote, and everyone knows in advance roughly who is going to vote, democracy won't work as well. The government should reflect all the people it serves.

Retric 11y ago
One of the more interesting ideas I have rarely seen in fiction is an actual benevolent and wise AI taking over. Closest is probably the Culture novels which shows up as a very odd society.
- Aloha 11y ago
  a wise and benevolent AI would likely do things unwise for the long term survival of humanity
  - __s 11y ago
    But that'd contradict the 0th law of robotics
- maxerickson 11y ago
  It's basically the theme of Asimov's later works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Daneel_Olivaw#The_Foundation_Series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Daneel_Olivaw#The_Foundatio...
- DrScump 11y ago
  Check out the Twilight Zone episode "The Old Man in the Cave" for one example.
valvar 11y ago
Why exactly is democracy the best, or shall we say "least bad", option? Have you, or has Churchill, evaluated all of the alternatives? And how does the belief that you air in your last sentence, that government should reflect all the people it serves, rhyme with your belief that the ideal (but admittedly in your opinion impossible) form of government would be one run by benevolent geniuses who always implement the right policies, even if they are not popular? If I may, it does seem to me that qualitative and quantitative government are two quite distinct concepts - one might even go so far as to say that they are fundamentally opposed. Increasing voter turnout certainly increases the quantitative, most purely democratic, aspect of democracy - but what should someone who is more interested in the qualitative aspects of government have to say about that? And if one, as a supporter of democracy as the least bad option, recognises the inherent problems of popular government as a necessary trade-off, would it not make sense to try to mitigate as much of those to the greatest extent possible? I'm not sure if increasing voter turnout to absurd levels would be in tune with this latter category of mindsets, but I'd be curious to hear what you or others of a similar opinion think about that...
- burkaman 11y ago
  Well, you've raised some questions that I think are much bigger than an HN comments section, and I think there are many books and essays that will give better answers than I ever could. If you are interested in mitigating the issues of high voter turnout by discouraging turnout, you are not a supporter of democracy. I don't say that as a value judgment, just by definition, democracy means everyone voting for a government that reflects the whole population. If you support democracy, then you should support other efforts to solve these problems. Improve education to increase voter quality. Design the government so some crucial positions are somewhat shielded from popular opinion (judges, generals, etc.). Modify term limits to protect politicians from potentially unpopular decisions. I don't know, I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas. We could ask Belgium and Turkey and Sweden what they do to combat the threat of irrational and uneducated voters. I have not evaluated all the alternatives to democracy, but I would say history has. That's not a perfect answer, but in practice democracy is clearly at least as effective as any other government system, and by many measures clearly the best option. When I say that a benevolent genius would be better, I don't think that contradicts my other points because all real governments are run by humans, and all humans are flawed. But when a dictator or a small group of ruling elites screws up, they have incredibly strong motivations to hang onto power anyway. This is a bad thing. In an ideal democracy, there is no long-term way for any one person or group of people to remain in power unless they govern in a way that benefits their whole country. I don't think this is true for any other system of government. Finally, if you don't consistently make decisions that your people support, they will overthrow you. It doesn't matter if you know what's best for them. There is no point in trying to design a government that doesn't reflect the people, because it won't last, regardless of how great its policies are.

Retric 11y ago

One of the more interesting ideas I have rarely seen in fiction is an actual benevolent and wise AI taking over. Closest is probably the Culture novels which shows up as a very odd society.

Aloha 11y ago
a wise and benevolent AI would likely do things unwise for the long term survival of humanity
- __s 11y ago
  But that'd contradict the 0th law of robotics
maxerickson 11y ago
It's basically the theme of Asimov's later works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Daneel_Olivaw#The_Foundation_Series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Daneel_Olivaw#The_Foundatio...
DrScump 11y ago
Check out the Twilight Zone episode "The Old Man in the Cave" for one example.

valvar 11y ago

Why exactly is democracy the best, or shall we say "least bad", option? Have you, or has Churchill, evaluated all of the alternatives? And how does the belief that you air in your last sentence, that government should reflect all the people it serves, rhyme with your belief that the ideal (but admittedly in your opinion impossible) form of government would be one run by benevolent geniuses who always implement the right policies, even if they are not popular? If I may, it does seem to me that qualitative and quantitative government are two quite distinct concepts - one might even go so far as to say that they are fundamentally opposed. Increasing voter turnout certainly increases the quantitative, most purely democratic, aspect of democracy - but what should someone who is more interested in the qualitative aspects of government have to say about that? And if one, as a supporter of democracy as the least bad option, recognises the inherent problems of popular government as a necessary trade-off, would it not make sense to try to mitigate as much of those to the greatest extent possible? I'm not sure if increasing voter turnout to absurd levels would be in tune with this latter category of mindsets, but I'd be curious to hear what you or others of a similar opinion think about that...

burkaman 11y ago
Well, you've raised some questions that I think are much bigger than an HN comments section, and I think there are many books and essays that will give better answers than I ever could. If you are interested in mitigating the issues of high voter turnout by discouraging turnout, you are not a supporter of democracy. I don't say that as a value judgment, just by definition, democracy means everyone voting for a government that reflects the whole population. If you support democracy, then you should support other efforts to solve these problems. Improve education to increase voter quality. Design the government so some crucial positions are somewhat shielded from popular opinion (judges, generals, etc.). Modify term limits to protect politicians from potentially unpopular decisions. I don't know, I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas. We could ask Belgium and Turkey and Sweden what they do to combat the threat of irrational and uneducated voters. I have not evaluated all the alternatives to democracy, but I would say history has. That's not a perfect answer, but in practice democracy is clearly at least as effective as any other government system, and by many measures clearly the best option. When I say that a benevolent genius would be better, I don't think that contradicts my other points because all real governments are run by humans, and all humans are flawed. But when a dictator or a small group of ruling elites screws up, they have incredibly strong motivations to hang onto power anyway. This is a bad thing. In an ideal democracy, there is no long-term way for any one person or group of people to remain in power unless they govern in a way that benefits their whole country. I don't think this is true for any other system of government. Finally, if you don't consistently make decisions that your people support, they will overthrow you. It doesn't matter if you know what's best for them. There is no point in trying to design a government that doesn't reflect the people, because it won't last, regardless of how great its policies are.