5 ms·

I don't like it any more than you do, but 'catering to the whims of the majority' seems more like an inevitable consequence of democracy than a threat to it. It

by dri_ft 7y ago

I don't like it any more than you do, but 'catering to the whims of the majority' seems more like an inevitable consequence of democracy than a threat to it. It's practically written into its definition.

vorpalhex 7y ago
> an inevitable consequence of democracy This is why we don't typically practice direct democracy and instead have safeguards. The idea you're getting at is typically called "The Tyranny of the Majority" and is something the US founders were very cognizant of. It's why we have a split congress (house/senate), why we have the rights in the way we do (not given by the government but granted a priori to the government) and so on. Populism can be a result of democracy, but is often times a way to subvert democracy and instead install a dictator. Thus why it's derided (on top of it's direct consequences) and why we should have safeguards in democracy.
- mistermann 7y ago
  It would be interesting to have something like a non-binding direct democracy where people vote on very low level issues. This way, the true "will of the people" could actually be known, rather the the current situation where the government and media pretends that it's known.
  - macintux 7y ago
    Even direct voting wouldn’t reveal the will of the people, because the issues are generally vastly more complex than the information supplied about them. If my desire is to, say, eliminate the homeless problem, I wouldn’t have the faintest idea how to implement that as government policy, and anything up for a vote would almost certainly have intended and unintended consequences that are far beyond my ability to anticipate them. E.g., California’s experimentation with direct voting. The long-term consequences of some of their votes have been tragic and definitely not what the voters would have thought they were voting for.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      > Even direct voting wouldn’t reveal the will of the people, because the issues are generally vastly more complex than the information supplied about them. Well sure, it wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a hell of a lot more accurate than the currently popular belief that who you vote for is necessarily substantially reflective of your actual beliefs. > If my desire is to, say, eliminate the homeless problem... Sure, but wouldn't it be potentially useful to know the degree to which people consider addressing homelessness a priority, or their beliefs in what the underlying causes are? > E.g., California’s experimentation with direct voting. The long-term consequences of some of their votes have been tragic and definitely not what the voters would have thought they were voting for. Are you suggesting that because one specific implementation was unsuccessful, it proves the idea cannot be successful?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by dri_ft 7y ago

vorpalhex 7y ago

> an inevitable consequence of democracy This is why we don't typically practice direct democracy and instead have safeguards. The idea you're getting at is typically called "The Tyranny of the Majority" and is something the US founders were very cognizant of. It's why we have a split congress (house/senate), why we have the rights in the way we do (not given by the government but granted a priori to the government) and so on. Populism can be a result of democracy, but is often times a way to subvert democracy and instead install a dictator. Thus why it's derided (on top of it's direct consequences) and why we should have safeguards in democracy.

mistermann 7y ago
It would be interesting to have something like a non-binding direct democracy where people vote on very low level issues. This way, the true "will of the people" could actually be known, rather the the current situation where the government and media pretends that it's known.
- macintux 7y ago
  Even direct voting wouldn’t reveal the will of the people, because the issues are generally vastly more complex than the information supplied about them. If my desire is to, say, eliminate the homeless problem, I wouldn’t have the faintest idea how to implement that as government policy, and anything up for a vote would almost certainly have intended and unintended consequences that are far beyond my ability to anticipate them. E.g., California’s experimentation with direct voting. The long-term consequences of some of their votes have been tragic and definitely not what the voters would have thought they were voting for.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > Even direct voting wouldn’t reveal the will of the people, because the issues are generally vastly more complex than the information supplied about them. Well sure, it wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a hell of a lot more accurate than the currently popular belief that who you vote for is necessarily substantially reflective of your actual beliefs. > If my desire is to, say, eliminate the homeless problem... Sure, but wouldn't it be potentially useful to know the degree to which people consider addressing homelessness a priority, or their beliefs in what the underlying causes are? > E.g., California’s experimentation with direct voting. The long-term consequences of some of their votes have been tragic and definitely not what the voters would have thought they were voting for. Are you suggesting that because one specific implementation was unsuccessful, it proves the idea cannot be successful?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]