4 ms·
you don't have to have perfect information spread throughout a population to make good collective decisions amongst it. it's ok if much of the electorate is som
by clairity 6y ago
you don't have to have perfect information spread throughout a population to make good collective decisions amongst it. it's ok if much of the electorate is somewhat ignorant or poorly informed, as long as that's relatively uncorrelated (i.e., there's no systemic coercion of choice). but that's exactly what parties are designed to subvert to their advantage. so then, what we need to do is to do everything we can to move away from party politics, including better voting mechanisms and removing the outsized influence of money in politics.
- nickff 6y agoThe problem isn't systematic coercion of choice, it's widespread popular biases and a general lack of knowledge. If you are interested in improving democratic outcomes, you need to understand the individuals you're encouraging to vote.
- clairity 6y ago> "The problem isn't systematic coercion of choice, it's widespread popular biases..." what is "widespread popular biases" but systemic coercions? and no, we specifically don't need to understand individuals, just the systemic coercions (so we can counteract them).
- nickff 6y ago'Systemic coercion' implies outside influence; citizens suffer from a number of internal biases, entirely aside from outside issues. Please just take a look at some of the literature on voter ignorance.
- clairity 6y agothere's no reasonable evidence that people are too dumb/ignorant to make a good electorate. that's primarily ego talking. and we don't need to correct for internal biases over a population because, by definition, internal biases are uncorrelated. but you said "popular", which is a social bias that correlates beliefs.