5 ms·

I was thinking of the rise and fall of democracy from before the Roman empire and through the present day. Pick any time and look back only a few centuries, and

I was thinking of the rise and fall of democracy from before the Roman empire and through the present day. Pick any time and look back only a few centuries, and the answer to "What is the natural end state of government?" looks very different. Zoom out a bit and it's clear that if there is an end state, we haven't reached it yet. Please note: I am being very careful with the claims I am making here. I have a little more than a layperson's understanding of Rome's history (years of Latin classes paying off at last!) but not nearly enough to call myself an authority on governments through the ages. My point -- my only[0] point -- is that "The Internet started off federated and has become centralized / nobody has gotten federation to stick yet" is not enough of an argument to support "federation is doomed to failure". My comment does not totally disagree with its parent, which seems to think that alternative approaches may succeed. We certainly agree that it's important to learn from the past. I'm having trouble wrapping this up, but don't want to spend more time, so I'll leave it on that somewhat unfinished note. [0] edit: I suppose there is also a secondary point that systems design is, like governance, an inherently social issue. This makes any analysis a lot more complex than if we restrict ourselves to purely technical merits.

eru 6y ago
I generally agree. Though just to be clear: Rome was never considered a democracy. If you want a classic example, some of the Greek city states might count. Though keep in mind that many of the Greeks considered sortition (ie random selection) the hallmark of the democracy, and considered that voting would just lead to aristocracy or oligarchy. The German Free Imperial Cities are an interesting object of study. And there's lots to be learned from eg China as well.
- thayne 6y ago
  > considered that voting would just lead to aristocracy or oligarchy. Well, looking at the US at least, they weren't wrong.
  - eru 6y ago
    Perhaps. I actually think some variant of sortition is superior to most voting systems to eg fill up a parliament; but to take the US as an example to argue that voting is bad would make the job too easy. Eg the German electoral system is also a bit messy, but seems to work well in practice. That might be a better yardstick to measure what voting can do, before we dismiss it. (My favourite sortition variant right now: - everyone can register as a candidate, if they want to - every voter can pick one candidate to put on their ballot - we select a few hundred ballots at random to fill up a parliament For completeness sake, add some mechanism to handle a single candidate being selected by more than one randomly drawn ballot. Eg you could draw again, or you could give that candidate extra weight in parliamentary votes, or you could form a chain and add a person of the double-candidates choice to parliament, or you could have voters write down multiple candidates in order, and just pick a later one on the voters list etc. Parliament can then select the executive, like it is already done in the UK or in Germany.)
    - thayne 6y ago
      My post was a little tongue in cheek. I don't think a voting sysyem necessarily leads to an aristocracy/oligarchy. But it certainly can, and it needs to be carefully crafted to avoid that.
      - eru 6y ago
        Well, voting leads to specialisation of labour, and thus a political caste. The sortition system I sketched would still reward specialisation of labour, but there would be fewer threshold effects: if you convince thirty friends friends to ballot for you, you'd have a ten times higher chance to make it into parliament compared to only convincing three friends. With voting you have threshold effects. In all but the smallest towns, getting thirty people to vote for you has exactly the same outcome as zero votes.
- smichel17 6y ago
  > Though just to be clear: Rome was never considered a democracy. I did intentionally avoid clarifying this (also, technically the US is a republic) because I was trying to paint in broad strokes — I don't think my point needed details to be convincing and so I didn't want to get bogged down in them. I'm happy for the clarification as a reply, though :) A better phrase, which I would have used if I'd thought of it at the time, would be "representative government".

eru 6y ago

I generally agree. Though just to be clear: Rome was never considered a democracy. If you want a classic example, some of the Greek city states might count. Though keep in mind that many of the Greeks considered sortition (ie random selection) the hallmark of the democracy, and considered that voting would just lead to aristocracy or oligarchy. The German Free Imperial Cities are an interesting object of study. And there's lots to be learned from eg China as well.

thayne 6y ago
> considered that voting would just lead to aristocracy or oligarchy. Well, looking at the US at least, they weren't wrong.
- eru 6y ago
  Perhaps. I actually think some variant of sortition is superior to most voting systems to eg fill up a parliament; but to take the US as an example to argue that voting is bad would make the job too easy. Eg the German electoral system is also a bit messy, but seems to work well in practice. That might be a better yardstick to measure what voting can do, before we dismiss it. (My favourite sortition variant right now: - everyone can register as a candidate, if they want to - every voter can pick one candidate to put on their ballot - we select a few hundred ballots at random to fill up a parliament For completeness sake, add some mechanism to handle a single candidate being selected by more than one randomly drawn ballot. Eg you could draw again, or you could give that candidate extra weight in parliamentary votes, or you could form a chain and add a person of the double-candidates choice to parliament, or you could have voters write down multiple candidates in order, and just pick a later one on the voters list etc. Parliament can then select the executive, like it is already done in the UK or in Germany.)
  - thayne 6y ago
    My post was a little tongue in cheek. I don't think a voting sysyem necessarily leads to an aristocracy/oligarchy. But it certainly can, and it needs to be carefully crafted to avoid that.
    - eru 6y ago
      Well, voting leads to specialisation of labour, and thus a political caste. The sortition system I sketched would still reward specialisation of labour, but there would be fewer threshold effects: if you convince thirty friends friends to ballot for you, you'd have a ten times higher chance to make it into parliament compared to only convincing three friends. With voting you have threshold effects. In all but the smallest towns, getting thirty people to vote for you has exactly the same outcome as zero votes.
smichel17 6y ago
> Though just to be clear: Rome was never considered a democracy. I did intentionally avoid clarifying this (also, technically the US is a republic) because I was trying to paint in broad strokes — I don't think my point needed details to be convincing and so I didn't want to get bogged down in them. I'm happy for the clarification as a reply, though :) A better phrase, which I would have used if I'd thought of it at the time, would be "representative government".