5 ms·

If we assume that voters are unable to deal with misinformation then we have already given up on democracy. The next logical step is to decide how to blunt th

If we assume that voters are unable to deal with misinformation then we have already given up on democracy. The next logical step is to decide how to blunt the will of the misinformed voter.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> If we assume that voters are unable to deal with misinformation then we have already given up on democracy That’s like saying we have to give up on capitalism because people can commit fraud. Targeted electoral misinformation is a fixable problem.
- someguydave 8y ago
  Certainly information conduits and platforms can change the way that they operate. However, if some government entity can decide what voters are allowed to know, it has become the new sovereign and the form of government is no longer democracy.
- someguydave 8y ago
  If you define the word “capitalism” to mean “unregulated free market” then policing fraud is indeed an infringement in that market freedom. The analogy breaks down when you realize the claim to legitimacy of the US government rests on the sovereignty of the voter.
platz 8y ago
Depends on what you mean by democracy. Suppose you get 100% voter participation through free and fair elections. Are you still sure that fails the definition of democracy? How hard is it to make that case? What if the voters choose an outcome you just don't happen to like? Is that all of a sudden undemocratic?
- chucksmash 8y ago
  It's certainly possible to make an undemocratic decision democratically. Consider holding a referendum that specified nobody who hadn't yet been born as of the referendum date would ever be allowed to vote. It's a purposefully silly example (HN isn't for political debates!) but broadly, it's a democratically made self determination that reduces or precludes the ability to make democratic decisions in the future.
  - platz 8y ago
    That's why I made sure to include "free and fair elections" in my description
    - chucksmash 8y ago
      And the current election would be both free and fair. It's the consequences that would be anything but.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  And if the majority of those voters are opposed to democracy itself, and vote for candidates who promise to take away votes from people they don't like, or establish a theocracy? "America isn't and shouldn't be a democracy" is a common Republican talking point. This has happened in Poland and Hungary and its darn close to happening in the United States.
  - platz 8y ago
    Well that's quite a pickle to find oneself in, isn't it?
  - 0x445442 8y ago
    Not sure what you’re implying with your statement about the Republican talking point. The point of the point is the U.S. was designed to be a Constitutional Republic which isn’t a democracy. The Constitutional Republic is designed to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual via the Constitution and bill of rights. If by Democracy one is referring solely to majority rule, then protection against individual rights and freedom are lost. The U.S. should fear the latter, not the former.
    - siidooloo 8y ago
      The United Stares is a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and a representative democracy. Democracy is not the opposite of a republic. Monarchy is.
      - 0x445442 8y ago
        True as long as the representative democracy doesn’t infringe on the individual’s constitutional rights. That’s where the democracy bit gives way to the judicial branch. Of coarse with a politicized court you’re right back to the ills of a democracy.
        siidooloo 8y ago

If we assume that voters are unable to deal with misinformation then we have already given up on democracy. The next logical step is to decide how to blunt the will of the misinformed voter.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> If we assume that voters are unable to deal with misinformation then we have already given up on democracy That’s like saying we have to give up on capitalism because people can commit fraud. Targeted electoral misinformation is a fixable problem.

someguydave 8y ago
Certainly information conduits and platforms can change the way that they operate. However, if some government entity can decide what voters are allowed to know, it has become the new sovereign and the form of government is no longer democracy.
someguydave 8y ago
If you define the word “capitalism” to mean “unregulated free market” then policing fraud is indeed an infringement in that market freedom. The analogy breaks down when you realize the claim to legitimacy of the US government rests on the sovereignty of the voter.

platz 8y ago

Depends on what you mean by democracy. Suppose you get 100% voter participation through free and fair elections. Are you still sure that fails the definition of democracy? How hard is it to make that case? What if the voters choose an outcome you just don't happen to like? Is that all of a sudden undemocratic?

chucksmash 8y ago
It's certainly possible to make an undemocratic decision democratically. Consider holding a referendum that specified nobody who hadn't yet been born as of the referendum date would ever be allowed to vote. It's a purposefully silly example (HN isn't for political debates!) but broadly, it's a democratically made self determination that reduces or precludes the ability to make democratic decisions in the future.
- platz 8y ago
  That's why I made sure to include "free and fair elections" in my description
  - chucksmash 8y ago
    And the current election would be both free and fair. It's the consequences that would be anything but.
hannasanarion 8y ago
And if the majority of those voters are opposed to democracy itself, and vote for candidates who promise to take away votes from people they don't like, or establish a theocracy? "America isn't and shouldn't be a democracy" is a common Republican talking point. This has happened in Poland and Hungary and its darn close to happening in the United States.
- platz 8y ago
  Well that's quite a pickle to find oneself in, isn't it?
- 0x445442 8y ago
  Not sure what you’re implying with your statement about the Republican talking point. The point of the point is the U.S. was designed to be a Constitutional Republic which isn’t a democracy. The Constitutional Republic is designed to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual via the Constitution and bill of rights. If by Democracy one is referring solely to majority rule, then protection against individual rights and freedom are lost. The U.S. should fear the latter, not the former.
  - siidooloo 8y ago
    The United Stares is a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and a representative democracy. Democracy is not the opposite of a republic. Monarchy is.
    - 0x445442 8y ago
      True as long as the representative democracy doesn’t infringe on the individual’s constitutional rights. That’s where the democracy bit gives way to the judicial branch. Of coarse with a politicized court you’re right back to the ills of a democracy.
      - siidooloo 8y ago