3 ms·

At the end of the day, individual citizens decided to show up at the polls and vote for candidates. The premise of this article seems to imply that sometimes wh

At the end of the day, individual citizens decided to show up at the polls and vote for candidates. The premise of this article seems to imply that sometimes when that happens, it's not fair. In particular, citizens are too ignorant or easily manipulated to be trusted to choose their own leaders. A core tenet of democracy is that the voters are capable of governing themselves. Or at least the popular vote is better than other alternatives. > The informational underpinnings of democracy have eroded, and no one has explained precisely how. I'd argue that the desire to make sure that the education and motivation of the populace is properly supervised is more dangerous to democracy than a giant pile of pizzagate spam.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
You're getting to the old split between "developmental" and "representative" democracy. American democracy has usually been the latter (Madison's Federalist Papers) with stretches of the former (Jackson, later populism). The dynamics aren't really new, it's that introduction of unrestrained information which is unprecedented and destabilizing.
hsod 9y ago
You state this as an absolute, but taken to it's conclusion it seems to be arguing that no one should attempt to influence the vote of anyone else. I see nothing undemocratic about examining the ways in which voters receive information and attempting to address deficiencies. Controversial statement: It's better for voters to believe true things than to believe false things.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I'm arguing against the government doing things to make sure voters vote the "right" way. Reductio ad absurdum, my argument would turn into this: voters are always right. But that's simple enough to refute. Pick some examples of democratically elected leaders who ended up being terrible. Pick some Jim Crow laws enacted through the democratic process. I think it's more likely in the U.S., at least right now, that the government starts interfering in speech or elections in undemocratic ways than that the electorate would elect a tyrant. That being said, there are some provably false stories floating around out there. There should be a good case for revisiting American libel and slander laws, or at least revisiting how they are prosecuted and enforced. If the slanderer is a foreign power, Washington has a responsibility to judiciously ensure that doesn't happen again. But babysitting the American voter is a bad idea. If they can't be trusted, we've picked the wrong form of government. And while liberal republican democracy has its issues, it has proven better than the alternatives, at least the ones attempted so far

aaron-lebo 9y ago

You're getting to the old split between "developmental" and "representative" democracy. American democracy has usually been the latter (Madison's Federalist Papers) with stretches of the former (Jackson, later populism). The dynamics aren't really new, it's that introduction of unrestrained information which is unprecedented and destabilizing.

hsod 9y ago

You state this as an absolute, but taken to it's conclusion it seems to be arguing that no one should attempt to influence the vote of anyone else. I see nothing undemocratic about examining the ways in which voters receive information and attempting to address deficiencies. Controversial statement: It's better for voters to believe true things than to believe false things.

humanrebar 9y ago
I'm arguing against the government doing things to make sure voters vote the "right" way. Reductio ad absurdum, my argument would turn into this: voters are always right. But that's simple enough to refute. Pick some examples of democratically elected leaders who ended up being terrible. Pick some Jim Crow laws enacted through the democratic process. I think it's more likely in the U.S., at least right now, that the government starts interfering in speech or elections in undemocratic ways than that the electorate would elect a tyrant. That being said, there are some provably false stories floating around out there. There should be a good case for revisiting American libel and slander laws, or at least revisiting how they are prosecuted and enforced. If the slanderer is a foreign power, Washington has a responsibility to judiciously ensure that doesn't happen again. But babysitting the American voter is a bad idea. If they can't be trusted, we've picked the wrong form of government. And while liberal republican democracy has its issues, it has proven better than the alternatives, at least the ones attempted so far