6 ms·

> All political systems with a modicum of success, including ours, have worked to align interests without relying on a moral compass. I would agree with most o

> All political systems with a modicum of success, including ours, have worked to align interests without relying on a moral compass. I would agree with most of what you said, particularly your diagnosis of the dysfunctions of the US system, but this part simply isn't true. There are plenty of successful democracies (almost all in central and northern Europe, admittedly) where political partisanship exists within a moral framework, and politicians adhere to certain moral and democratic norms, even when it is against their immediate interests to do so. I think it's easy to overgeneralise the problems of the closest example to hand as being representative of all, and being fundamental and unavoidable limitations of human nature. But there are always counter-examples. There are always places where government actually delivers to people, and where the political system avoids the worst systemic dysfunctions that plague other regimes. I'm not sure the US will ever reform its political system to achieve the same results, but, at the very least, we shouldn't let politicians (and the people who elect them) off the hook for underperforming vs. what we know is possible.

indubitable 9y ago
Most of the democracies of which you're referencing use proportional voting systems often paired with a parliamentary system. That system in particular makes it phenomenally easy to replace politicians and tends to work most effectively as a coercive device against bad behavior. The reason for this is that it minimizes the necessity of strategic voting. In the US it doesn't matter if the #1 candidate only got 10% of the vote. As long as the #2 candidate got less than 10%, then #1 gets 100% of the seats and political power. Because of this, voters have to factor in the insidious 'electability' into their decisions. Fewer people than ever identify as republican or democrat, yet they retain very near 100% of seats at all levels. This is what I was alluding to when mentioning that part of the problem is our system. Compare this to a proportional system where if there are 10 seats available then gaining at least 10% of the vote, in general, tends to guarantee you representation. This makes strategic voting much less of a concern. Even the 'Pirate Party' has managed to win representation in a variety of nations similar to those you allude to. And for the sake of brevity, I'll omit more precise discussion of population size and diversity here. But those factors need also be considered. Compared to the nations you're mentioning, the US is huge and incredibly diverse. Democracy is redundant in populations where views tend to remain fairly similar throughout as any action would tend to be the will of all. On the other end, in a nation where everybody held views often mutually exclusive, democracy would be dysfunctional at best as any action would please one group to the offense of all the rest. Of course every nation's reality lay somewhere between the opposite extremes, but where the nations you describe may lay closer to one end, I suspect the US lays closer to the other.

indubitable 9y ago

Most of the democracies of which you're referencing use proportional voting systems often paired with a parliamentary system. That system in particular makes it phenomenally easy to replace politicians and tends to work most effectively as a coercive device against bad behavior. The reason for this is that it minimizes the necessity of strategic voting. In the US it doesn't matter if the #1 candidate only got 10% of the vote. As long as the #2 candidate got less than 10%, then #1 gets 100% of the seats and political power. Because of this, voters have to factor in the insidious 'electability' into their decisions. Fewer people than ever identify as republican or democrat, yet they retain very near 100% of seats at all levels. This is what I was alluding to when mentioning that part of the problem is our system. Compare this to a proportional system where if there are 10 seats available then gaining at least 10% of the vote, in general, tends to guarantee you representation. This makes strategic voting much less of a concern. Even the 'Pirate Party' has managed to win representation in a variety of nations similar to those you allude to. And for the sake of brevity, I'll omit more precise discussion of population size and diversity here. But those factors need also be considered. Compared to the nations you're mentioning, the US is huge and incredibly diverse. Democracy is redundant in populations where views tend to remain fairly similar throughout as any action would tend to be the will of all. On the other end, in a nation where everybody held views often mutually exclusive, democracy would be dysfunctional at best as any action would please one group to the offense of all the rest. Of course every nation's reality lay somewhere between the opposite extremes, but where the nations you describe may lay closer to one end, I suspect the US lays closer to the other.