4 ms·

I disagree about your last statement: "Only the voters can be blamed for electing bad politicians" If someone controls which subset of choices you are allowed

I disagree about your last statement: "Only the voters can be blamed for electing bad politicians" If someone controls which subset of choices you are allowed to pick from, and you choose the one you like the most out of those options, that first someone is still to blame for limiting your choice.

roenxi 8y ago
Nobody controls who can vote for who in any functioning democracy. There are governments that are better than others at manifesting the will of the voters; I like the sound of Switzerland myself. Practically speaking, "voters" as a bloc aren't organised enough to excercise that so so you get effects where a party will develop a brand then endorse a candidate who is sufficiently aligned with that brand. This isn't some scheme foisted upon them, this is an implicit equilibrium that will be found in any democratic system. I've got long argument about why that happens that I don't want to type here, but it is hardly an undesirable outcome from the perspective of an ordinary citizen. There is an argument against systems where the mathematical equilibrium is 2 parties, but that in no way removes the responsibility of voters for outcomes. If they care, they should organise an alternative. Nothing stopping them except the fact that creating a large brand is hard.
- taneq 8y ago
  > Nobody controls who can vote for who in any functioning democracy. You mean vote for which of the two candidates?
  - roenxi 8y ago
    Assuming you are talking about America, I am not very familiar with the situation but a quick google ([1]) suggests there were ~1,800 candidates with something like 8 different options with notable representation. Also, afaik, everyone is welcome to join a political party and scrum with the best of them to get good nominees through. It isn't fast or easy, but America's political process tilts a little on the slow-and-steady side for things like that. Also note that being a democracy doesn't mean that scribbling on a bit of paper is the limit of what can be done. Voter apathy and the inherent complexity of running a 300 million person country remains the big problem. [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2016 https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2016
kapauldo 8y ago
Yeah but you could run.

roenxi 8y ago

Nobody controls who can vote for who in any functioning democracy. There are governments that are better than others at manifesting the will of the voters; I like the sound of Switzerland myself. Practically speaking, "voters" as a bloc aren't organised enough to excercise that so so you get effects where a party will develop a brand then endorse a candidate who is sufficiently aligned with that brand. This isn't some scheme foisted upon them, this is an implicit equilibrium that will be found in any democratic system. I've got long argument about why that happens that I don't want to type here, but it is hardly an undesirable outcome from the perspective of an ordinary citizen. There is an argument against systems where the mathematical equilibrium is 2 parties, but that in no way removes the responsibility of voters for outcomes. If they care, they should organise an alternative. Nothing stopping them except the fact that creating a large brand is hard.

taneq 8y ago
> Nobody controls who can vote for who in any functioning democracy. You mean vote for which of the two candidates?
- roenxi 8y ago
  Assuming you are talking about America, I am not very familiar with the situation but a quick google ([1]) suggests there were ~1,800 candidates with something like 8 different options with notable representation. Also, afaik, everyone is welcome to join a political party and scrum with the best of them to get good nominees through. It isn't fast or easy, but America's political process tilts a little on the slow-and-steady side for things like that. Also note that being a democracy doesn't mean that scribbling on a bit of paper is the limit of what can be done. Voter apathy and the inherent complexity of running a 300 million person country remains the big problem. [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2016 https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2016

kapauldo 8y ago

Yeah but you could run.