3 ms·

> most voters don't agree with them Replace 'most' with 'a slender majority' if you want to retain the fig-leaf of objectivity and rationality that you seem to

by andybak 10y ago

> most voters don't agree with them Replace 'most' with 'a slender majority' if you want to retain the fig-leaf of objectivity and rationality that you seem to covet. Politics is littered with examples of groups who were deceived into voting against their own self-interest. This isn't some kind of bizarre conspiracy - it's business as usual. It strikes me as more bizarre to pretend that democracy is some kind of idealized machine that extracts considered, rational decisions from large aggregates of people. It never was and never has been. It's simply the "least worst"[1] way of choosing our leaders. [1] https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government

1337biz 10y ago
I am not here to defend Democracy or 'the system'. In fact I noticed the fallback to those fundamental critique comes always up when one's own favorite did lose. How the voting system works has been known for decades. It is the job of politicians and all those trying to shape the public opinion to convince people to vote.
- andybak 10y ago
  > In fact I noticed the fallback to those fundamental critique comes always up when one's own favorite did lose. Of course. We have vested interest in complaining when we 'lose' and praising the outcome when we 'win'. But your original post seemed to be dismissive of the idea that there is anything to be worried about. Even if we agree on the existence of a major cognitive bias here - it's irrelevant to the question of whether there is a real issue that should be addressed. The problem with a "backdoor in democracy" is similar to the problem with cryptography backdoors. You can't control who'll make use of them so everyone should be scared.
  - 1337biz 10y ago
    It is similar to the US campaign finance reform - if you want to spend money for your candidate you will always find a way to do it. For me it is much more surprising why so little money has been funneled into EU elections so far.
    - fche 10y ago
      Maybe they thought they were invulnerable.
supremesaboteur 10y ago
>Replace 'most' with 'a slender majority' if you want to retain the fig-leaf of objectivity and rationality that you seem to covet Would the argument still hold water if he did ? > Politics is littered with examples of groups who were deceived into voting against their own self-interest. This isn't some kind of bizarre conspiracy - it's business as usual. It strikes me as more bizarre to pretend that democracy is some kind of idealized machine that extracts considered, rational decisions from large aggregates of people Tell that to the leftists in US who go around shouting that Trump lost the popular vote
- andybak 10y ago
  > Would the argument still hold water if he did ? Do you mean mine or his? I think his argument would lose some rhetorical force and be much less persuasive. If you mean something else then please clarify as I don't quite follow. > Tell that to the leftists in US who go around shouting that Trump lost the popular vote I'm not sure how the existence of that group is relevant here. Surely if anything they underscore my point from the other side of the fence? I'm not claiming "this only happens to the side I disagree with" if that's what you're implying.

by andybak 10y ago

1337biz 10y ago

I am not here to defend Democracy or 'the system'. In fact I noticed the fallback to those fundamental critique comes always up when one's own favorite did lose. How the voting system works has been known for decades. It is the job of politicians and all those trying to shape the public opinion to convince people to vote.

andybak 10y ago
> In fact I noticed the fallback to those fundamental critique comes always up when one's own favorite did lose. Of course. We have vested interest in complaining when we 'lose' and praising the outcome when we 'win'. But your original post seemed to be dismissive of the idea that there is anything to be worried about. Even if we agree on the existence of a major cognitive bias here - it's irrelevant to the question of whether there is a real issue that should be addressed. The problem with a "backdoor in democracy" is similar to the problem with cryptography backdoors. You can't control who'll make use of them so everyone should be scared.
- 1337biz 10y ago
  It is similar to the US campaign finance reform - if you want to spend money for your candidate you will always find a way to do it. For me it is much more surprising why so little money has been funneled into EU elections so far.
  - fche 10y ago
    Maybe they thought they were invulnerable.

supremesaboteur 10y ago

>Replace 'most' with 'a slender majority' if you want to retain the fig-leaf of objectivity and rationality that you seem to covet Would the argument still hold water if he did ? > Politics is littered with examples of groups who were deceived into voting against their own self-interest. This isn't some kind of bizarre conspiracy - it's business as usual. It strikes me as more bizarre to pretend that democracy is some kind of idealized machine that extracts considered, rational decisions from large aggregates of people Tell that to the leftists in US who go around shouting that Trump lost the popular vote

andybak 10y ago
> Would the argument still hold water if he did ? Do you mean mine or his? I think his argument would lose some rhetorical force and be much less persuasive. If you mean something else then please clarify as I don't quite follow. > Tell that to the leftists in US who go around shouting that Trump lost the popular vote I'm not sure how the existence of that group is relevant here. Surely if anything they underscore my point from the other side of the fence? I'm not claiming "this only happens to the side I disagree with" if that's what you're implying.