6 ms·

I'm reminded of a few quotes. First, Sir Henry Maine in his "Popular Government": "The old Italian toxicologists are said to have always arranged their discov

I'm reminded of a few quotes. First, Sir Henry Maine in his "Popular Government": "The old Italian toxicologists are said to have always arranged their discoveries in a series of three terms—first the poison, next the antidote, thirdly the drug which neutralised the antidote. The antidote to the fundamental infirmities of democracy was Representation, but the drug that now defeats it is the Caucus [political party]" http://books.google.com/books?id=42YpAAAAYAAJ&dq=Popular%20Government&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=antidote&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=42YpAAAAYAAJ&dq=Popular... And Noah Webster eloquently states the fundamental problem with party politics: <blockquote> "...nothing is more dangerous to the cause of truth and liberty than a party spirit. When men are once united, in whatever form, or upon whatever occasion, the union creates a partiality or friendship for each member of the party or society. A coalition for any purpose creates an attachment, and inspires a confidence in the individuals of the party, which does not die with the cause which united them; but continues, and extends to every other object of social intercourse." "Thus we see men first united in some system of religious faith, generally agree in their political opinions. Natives of the same country, even in a foreign country, unite and form a separate private society. The Masons feel attached to each other, though in distant parts of the world." "The same may be said of Episcopalians, Quakers, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Federalists, and Antifederalists, mechanic societies, chambers of commerce, Jacobin and Democratic societies. It is altogether immaterial what circumstance first unites a number of men into a society; whether they first rally round the church, a square and compass, a cross, or a cap; the general effect is always the same; while the union continues, the members of the association feel a particular confidence in each other, which leads them to believe each other's opinions, to catch each other's passions, and to act in concert on every question in which they are interested." "Hence arises what is called bigotry or illiberality. Persons who are united on any occasion, are more apt to believe the prevailing opinions of their society, than the prevailing opinions of another society. They examine their own creeds more fully, (and perhaps with a mind predisposed to believe them), than they do the creeds of other societies. Hence the full persuasion in every society that theirs is right; and if I am right, others of course are wrong." http://books.google.com/books?id=89QDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0#PPA24,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=89QDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&#38... </blockquote> I agree with Webster, and disagree with Scott Adams on the reason why parties are bad. The problem with parties is not the money they raise. The problem is the polarization they create, and how each party's interpretation of events becomes warped in a way that makes their own side always right, and the other side always wrong. Overtime it means that both sides end up being half-brained - and no one has the ability to really solve problems. That said, banning parties is a non-trivial problem. If you just ban the nominal form, they will take some other form under a slightly different name. I think you would have to go all the way and perhaps create a complete ban on campaigning and campaign promises. Rather than having debates and speeches, candidates would participate in nationally televised job interviews that would talk about the candidates background and problem solving abilities. It may also be that integrating lotteries and randomness into the election would help with the public choice problem. I have thoughts on a better election design here: http://intellectual-detox.com/the-lottery-election-a-better-election-design/ http://intellectual-detox.com/the-lottery-election-a-better-...

torme 16y ago
In regards to your better election design, I have three main complaints. 1. Having candidates review each other seems like a good way to have the worst candidates float to the top. If you're in a contest with your competitors, given the option to knock the best options out of the race, wouldn't you do so? It seems like you're taking an overly optimistic view of human nature. 2. Having a large portion of the election based on randomness seems like it would diminish voter turnout even further. I understand its an attempt to reduce the noise created by the surrounded hype of a candidate, and that it would cause people to research these people on their own, but I dont think that would happen. I think people would see 2 random people, have no interest in either of them at a surface value, and then not vote as a result. 3. I dislike your criteria for selecting candidates, particularly for financial value. I don't think that a wealthy person is necessarily any more qualified than a poor man. I like the idea that the common man is able to obtain a position of power, regardless of background, but maybe I've watched Mr Smith Goes to Washington too many times. I do agree that there's an issue with polarization, but I think that at the end of the day, you'll still have two candidates, and that you'll end up with polarization anyways. At the same time, I think there are problems with having too many candidate options, as I mentioned in my other post in this thread. Maybe 2 is too few, and 10 is too many, and theres a happy medium in the middle somewhere.
- bokonist 16y ago
  1) In the first round of the election, with 18,000 candidates and 18,000 voters, the impact of each vote individually is negligible. In scenarios where an individual vote is of negligible value, votes generally do not vote out of crass self interest, but vote based on how the vote makes them feel out themselves - people vote out of sense of duty, justice, or social solidarity. Thus I would not expect the elector-voters to vote out of crass strategic self interest because it wouldn't really help them, and it would make the person feel rotten about themselves. In the later rounds, though, it might be a problem. One idea I thought of is that "honey pot" applications of known awful candidates get planted in the mix, and if you give a top grade to one of these awful applicants, you're vote is disqualified. But overall you may be right - the variation in which people outside the election are allowed to vote would probably be better. 2) Here's a fundamental question - should voting and elections be viewed as a means to an end? Or an end in itself? If you view voting as an end in itself, that's essentially a religious claim, and there's no grounds for debate. But if you view voting as a means to an end, I have no problem excluding people who aren't willing to put in the time to learn about the candidates. I would much rather have people not vote at all then vote based on slogans and sound bites. 3) The financial requirement ( the median income or about $40k in net worth) is not very steep. By definition, an average person who saves 10% of their income a year will be able to meet the requirement within ten years. I want my Representatives to be competent, experienced, wise, long-term-thinking individuals. If a person cannot meet that requirement, it means that they are either a) young b) incapable or unwilling of holding down an average job c) a live-for-the-moment spender. I have no problem excluding such people from office. Polarization happens not because of the two candidates, but because of party spirit. Party spirit is something that happens over time, its the result of agitators who cultivate a voting block by spreading and ideology, convincing people to pledge themselves in solidarity, etc. You can have just as many problems with multiple parties. For instance, the Weimar Republic had six major parties, yet it is among the worst examples of the dangers of party politics in history. The problem with our two party system is not bi-polarization, or a lack of choice. The problem is as Noah Webster said - its party spirit. And the problem of party spirit will be bad with two, three or six parties.

torme 16y ago

In regards to your better election design, I have three main complaints. 1. Having candidates review each other seems like a good way to have the worst candidates float to the top. If you're in a contest with your competitors, given the option to knock the best options out of the race, wouldn't you do so? It seems like you're taking an overly optimistic view of human nature. 2. Having a large portion of the election based on randomness seems like it would diminish voter turnout even further. I understand its an attempt to reduce the noise created by the surrounded hype of a candidate, and that it would cause people to research these people on their own, but I dont think that would happen. I think people would see 2 random people, have no interest in either of them at a surface value, and then not vote as a result. 3. I dislike your criteria for selecting candidates, particularly for financial value. I don't think that a wealthy person is necessarily any more qualified than a poor man. I like the idea that the common man is able to obtain a position of power, regardless of background, but maybe I've watched Mr Smith Goes to Washington too many times. I do agree that there's an issue with polarization, but I think that at the end of the day, you'll still have two candidates, and that you'll end up with polarization anyways. At the same time, I think there are problems with having too many candidate options, as I mentioned in my other post in this thread. Maybe 2 is too few, and 10 is too many, and theres a happy medium in the middle somewhere.

bokonist 16y ago
1) In the first round of the election, with 18,000 candidates and 18,000 voters, the impact of each vote individually is negligible. In scenarios where an individual vote is of negligible value, votes generally do not vote out of crass self interest, but vote based on how the vote makes them feel out themselves - people vote out of sense of duty, justice, or social solidarity. Thus I would not expect the elector-voters to vote out of crass strategic self interest because it wouldn't really help them, and it would make the person feel rotten about themselves. In the later rounds, though, it might be a problem. One idea I thought of is that "honey pot" applications of known awful candidates get planted in the mix, and if you give a top grade to one of these awful applicants, you're vote is disqualified. But overall you may be right - the variation in which people outside the election are allowed to vote would probably be better. 2) Here's a fundamental question - should voting and elections be viewed as a means to an end? Or an end in itself? If you view voting as an end in itself, that's essentially a religious claim, and there's no grounds for debate. But if you view voting as a means to an end, I have no problem excluding people who aren't willing to put in the time to learn about the candidates. I would much rather have people not vote at all then vote based on slogans and sound bites. 3) The financial requirement ( the median income or about $40k in net worth) is not very steep. By definition, an average person who saves 10% of their income a year will be able to meet the requirement within ten years. I want my Representatives to be competent, experienced, wise, long-term-thinking individuals. If a person cannot meet that requirement, it means that they are either a) young b) incapable or unwilling of holding down an average job c) a live-for-the-moment spender. I have no problem excluding such people from office. Polarization happens not because of the two candidates, but because of party spirit. Party spirit is something that happens over time, its the result of agitators who cultivate a voting block by spreading and ideology, convincing people to pledge themselves in solidarity, etc. You can have just as many problems with multiple parties. For instance, the Weimar Republic had six major parties, yet it is among the worst examples of the dangers of party politics in history. The problem with our two party system is not bi-polarization, or a lack of choice. The problem is as Noah Webster said - its party spirit. And the problem of party spirit will be bad with two, three or six parties.