3 ms·
The way I've been looking at it recently is that any defects in the mechanisms of democracy don't just result in more-random results and slightly less satisfied
by elihu 8y ago
The way I've been looking at it recently is that any defects in the mechanisms of democracy don't just result in more-random results and slightly less satisfied constituents, they're actually exploitable weaknesses that allow powerful people or institutions to exert more power than they would be otherwise entitled to.
We (speaking as a U.S. person) need to do away with the electoral college and first-past-the-post voting not because popular vote and a better election system are nice-to-have features, but because our current system paints a giant target on the political process we all rely on to ensure accountability. When the outcome of presidential elections depends on a few hundred or thousand voters in one or a few of Florida/Ohio/Michigan/Pennsylvania/Wisconsin, that's a systemic vulnerability.
There are active exploits in the wild; this is less a matter of instituting reforms to make things a little bit better and more a matter of adapting to new threats in order to reduce the risk of a systemic collapse.
Other exploitable vulnerabilities in our democratic process that have been weaponized to varying degrees include: Winner-take-all primary states (on the R side), superdelegates (on the D side), gerrymandering, Congressional procedural abuse (like the filibuster in the Senate, or refusing to vote on popular measures if it's opposed by a majority of the majority in the House), congressional gridlock, and sloppy campaign finance regulations.
- alexanderdmitri 8y agoIsn't there a catch-22 here? The system is a republic which writes its own requirements; if it's been compromised and exploited by outside systems to the point its kernel level processes are funadmentally corrupt/compromised, how can you trust it to autocorrect in a way that actually fixes the fundamental issues? The tools designed for "the people" to use and interact and influence the system have been neuteralized with mathematical precision (assuming a point where they worked as specified, there is an argument to be made that the system has always given lip service to the end user while really only catering to management). I think you only have a chance at implementing change if you're able to locate and leverage an exploit that the viruses within have either overlooked or can't completely secure against.
- elihu 8y agoI think democracy works pretty well in general, but it's prone to instabilities. Most problems that arise can be corrected. (I don't want to say that democracy is self-correcting; rather that correction is possible with appropriate intervention.) If things get too far off the rails, then the fate of the political process rests in the choices of a few powerful people whether or not to do the right thing, the level of engagement and organization of the resisting populace, the strength and independence of our various institutions, and plain dumb luck. There are many modern examples of failed democracies. We shouldn't think that "the pendulum will swing the other way"; sometimes it does, but if it doesn't then it's to late for a do-over. My thoughts on this are greatly influenced by a recent book called "On Tyranny; Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century" by Timothy Snyder.