7 ms·

How about the democracy syllogism: 1. We will pick a handful of people that you may choose from 2. You pick one of them (because there were no other choices)

How about the democracy syllogism: 1. We will pick a handful of people that you may choose from 2. You pick one of them (because there were no other choices) 3. Therefore you freely chose that person and are solely responsible for what that person does

acheron 6y ago
If they didn’t vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/162557-it-comes-from-a-very-ancient-democracy-you-see-you https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/162557-it-comes-from-a-very...
- yrimaxi 6y ago
  Indeed the reverse of my point.
giantg2 6y ago
That's sort of true. But this is only true in a democratic republic, not true direct democracy. Also, I don't believe most people are really claiming #3 - most people agree the choices suck, but don't hold individuals personally responsible.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  A republic is just any state not ruled by a monarch. And direct democracy isn’t the only way to eliminate it drastically mitigate the limited choice problem. Proportional representation with some form of ranked choice voting could drastically reduce the size and power of parties, lower the barrier to entry for more popular candidates, and promote coalition rule/compromise/political will.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    Certainly a voting system that avoids spoiler candidates and "wasted"/tactical votes should lead to better parties and candidates becoming options and winning elections. The original complaint above was that some unaccountable group "will pick a handful of people that you may choose from", which shouldn't be a problem if only party primaries were run properly, but I suppose that in a two-party state there isn't much selective pressure on either party to represent even the majority of its members, let alone the majority of voters or citizens.
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      You’re right of course. My point was that the kinds of systems I described would devalue not just the two parties (as more parties would be viable) but parties as a power structure generally (as they’d have to adapt to stay relevant).
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Ranked-choice will help to a degree (like in a general election where a sufficient number of people think a 3rd party candidate is better, etc). We would still need higher voter participation, especially in primaries. With such low voter turn out in primaries, that gives the most motivated (extreme) factions an advantage. Not to mention, we need to hold the primaries on the same day nationally. Right now the first few states might have 8 candidates to choose from, but the last few states only have 1-3 and would still suffer from bias since some of those candidates still wouldn't have a chance to win due to their poor performance in other states (unless the party executively overrides things at the caucus). I think the parties will remain powerful under ranked-chioce voting. People look to them as an authority more than an organization representing their own beliefs. It seems that many people also use it as an identity, which may stymie the benefits of ranked-choice. All this said, I think it's a step in the right direction, but wish that more could be done (voter participation and same day primaries for example).
sidpatil 6y ago
"Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black." —Henry Ford
yongjik 6y ago
And then there's the flip side (overly simplified, of course): 1. All politicians are corrupt. 2. Therefore, I will not support any of them. 3. The more people are disgusted of general politics, the easier it is for a corrupt politician to gain power. 4. But that's not my fault, because I never supported the elected one. In fact I never supported any of them! 5. Wow, this country is really going to shit. Go to step 1.
- yrimaxi 6y ago
  Flip side implies symmetry.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Voters really tie themselves in knots; do they think anyone is convinced it's all actually the fault of non-voters?
claudiawerner 6y ago
This may be a little unpopular to say on HN, but isn't this also the syllogism of choice offered by employers to most of the global population? You have a handful of employers to choose from.You pick one of them (because the only choice is to pick an employer, or - at best - live a life at the degrading mercy of the welfare state). Therefore you freely chose that employer and are solely responsible for your livelihood.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > isn't this also the syllogism of choice offered by employers to most of the global population? Not really. Each employer offers an additional "something" on top of all the other "somethings" offered by the other employers. > You have a handful of employers to choose from.You pick one of them. This is a step that does not have an analogous correspondent in the politicians' syllogism.
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    >Each employer offers an additional "something" on top of all the other "somethings" offered by the other employers. And each politician does the same - whether they deliver on the promise is another matter, and they can only promise a certain amount. Further, you can get trapped at a local maximum; there isn't much variation in what companies in sector X will offer you when you restrict the pool of companies to places close to you and (even more importantly, which makes this worse than the politician's case) willing to hire you. >This is a step that does not have an analogous correspondent in the politicians' syllogism. It has a correspondence in the syllogism I was replying to. Sure, you could become self-employed, but in the same way you could also become a politician. But neither a self-employed person nor a single politician can change the situation for everyone else (mind you, this is again worse in the employee's case than the voter's case; politicians often can make huge changes that benefit all voters, one kind employer cannot do that - in fact, cost-cutting and health risk-skirting employers drive employee rights because politicians decide to regulate them). Employment seems to be even more of a sham than democracy.
    - 6y ago
nine_k 6y ago
Democracy has a scaling problem. The further the voter is from the matter of the voting, the less informed the vote is. Voting for local changes or electing an official within your small village or a city precinct works well, because the voters both actually know what the matter is, and directly feel the consequences. This is how it works in the only directly democratic country I know, Switzerland. OTOH voting for a national leader in a country with 100M population cannot enjoy the same effect. Very few people have any opinion about candidates based on more or less close interaction. Neatly all opinions are manufactured by the PR people hired by the candidates, publicity stunts, and the big media. Getting more useful information is hard. This is why elections tend to become a popularity contest and involve emotionally overloaded rooting not unlike on a stadium. This is not how you can make a balanced, rational choice which can keep a democracy running well.
- Noumenon72 6y ago
  Matthew Yglesias wrote on Substack last week that this has completely changed and is no longer true. Because local newspapers no longer exist, our news consumption has shifted to large, national stories. I know 1000 times more about Trump and AOC than any official in my city precinct. Even when we know a local candidate well and know they bring home the bacon to our district, we often vote based on the national implications of the partisan conflict instead. Yglesias closes by saying, "We need to adjust to a world where information dissemination is not limited by truck routes (this is a good thing!) and we are consequently better informed about bigger units rather than “closer” ones." He suggests that means consolidating levels of government and putting more power into accountable executives. https://www.slowboring.com/p/local-news https://www.slowboring.com/p/local-news
  - nine_k 6y ago
    If you know a politician only from media, no matter local or global, you have already lost. I mean knowing an official by knowing what decisions (s)he has made in your local vicinity, which affected you personally. Or knowing by being neighbors. That is, somehow directly.
oneeyedpigeon 6y ago
Here in the UK, at least, this also manifests in the manifesto syllogism: 1. People voted for this party 2. This party's manifesto promised X, y, and z 3. Therefore people voted for X, y, and z
- glandium 6y ago
  4. The other party's manifesto promised A, B and C 5. Therefore people voted against A, B and C
tpoacher 6y ago
% "I don't care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating." -- Boss Tweed (19th century American politician)
coolgeek 6y ago
Your logical error here is that the "you" in proposition 2 is part of the "we" in proposition 1 Don't get me wrong. There's plenty of problems with the system. But you have the opportunity to participate in choosing the handful of people. If your favored candidate did not get selected, either you failed (you didn't work hard enough), or your candidate failed (for an uncountable number of possible reasons). Also, your conclusion(s) does/do not follow Edit: Of course, if you live in a country where candidates are literally chosen by the state, this does not apply. But it applies in every actually (or reasonably) democratic country
- yrimaxi 6y ago
  The we are the power elite, you is everyone else. That there is such a thing as a power elite seems obvious enough. Pick a sociology book at random? Political candidates are (in America) in effect picked by moneyed interests, i.e. groups and people who have enough money to throw tens of thousands or millions at political campaigns etc. You can of course volunteer for political candidates, but it’s a safer bet to just have money to spend. > Also, your conclusion(s) does/do not follow That’s the point!

acheron 6y ago

If they didn’t vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/162557-it-comes-from-a-very-ancient-democracy-you-see-you https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/162557-it-comes-from-a-very...

yrimaxi 6y ago
Indeed the reverse of my point.

giantg2 6y ago

That's sort of true. But this is only true in a democratic republic, not true direct democracy. Also, I don't believe most people are really claiming #3 - most people agree the choices suck, but don't hold individuals personally responsible.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
A republic is just any state not ruled by a monarch. And direct democracy isn’t the only way to eliminate it drastically mitigate the limited choice problem. Proportional representation with some form of ranked choice voting could drastically reduce the size and power of parties, lower the barrier to entry for more popular candidates, and promote coalition rule/compromise/political will.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  Certainly a voting system that avoids spoiler candidates and "wasted"/tactical votes should lead to better parties and candidates becoming options and winning elections. The original complaint above was that some unaccountable group "will pick a handful of people that you may choose from", which shouldn't be a problem if only party primaries were run properly, but I suppose that in a two-party state there isn't much selective pressure on either party to represent even the majority of its members, let alone the majority of voters or citizens.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    You’re right of course. My point was that the kinds of systems I described would devalue not just the two parties (as more parties would be viable) but parties as a power structure generally (as they’d have to adapt to stay relevant).
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Ranked-choice will help to a degree (like in a general election where a sufficient number of people think a 3rd party candidate is better, etc). We would still need higher voter participation, especially in primaries. With such low voter turn out in primaries, that gives the most motivated (extreme) factions an advantage. Not to mention, we need to hold the primaries on the same day nationally. Right now the first few states might have 8 candidates to choose from, but the last few states only have 1-3 and would still suffer from bias since some of those candidates still wouldn't have a chance to win due to their poor performance in other states (unless the party executively overrides things at the caucus). I think the parties will remain powerful under ranked-chioce voting. People look to them as an authority more than an organization representing their own beliefs. It seems that many people also use it as an identity, which may stymie the benefits of ranked-choice. All this said, I think it's a step in the right direction, but wish that more could be done (voter participation and same day primaries for example).

sidpatil 6y ago

"Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black." —Henry Ford

yongjik 6y ago

And then there's the flip side (overly simplified, of course): 1. All politicians are corrupt. 2. Therefore, I will not support any of them. 3. The more people are disgusted of general politics, the easier it is for a corrupt politician to gain power. 4. But that's not my fault, because I never supported the elected one. In fact I never supported any of them! 5. Wow, this country is really going to shit. Go to step 1.

yrimaxi 6y ago
Flip side implies symmetry.
jessaustin 6y ago
Voters really tie themselves in knots; do they think anyone is convinced it's all actually the fault of non-voters?

claudiawerner 6y ago

This may be a little unpopular to say on HN, but isn't this also the syllogism of choice offered by employers to most of the global population? You have a handful of employers to choose from.You pick one of them (because the only choice is to pick an employer, or - at best - live a life at the degrading mercy of the welfare state). Therefore you freely chose that employer and are solely responsible for your livelihood.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> isn't this also the syllogism of choice offered by employers to most of the global population? Not really. Each employer offers an additional "something" on top of all the other "somethings" offered by the other employers. > You have a handful of employers to choose from.You pick one of them. This is a step that does not have an analogous correspondent in the politicians' syllogism.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >Each employer offers an additional "something" on top of all the other "somethings" offered by the other employers. And each politician does the same - whether they deliver on the promise is another matter, and they can only promise a certain amount. Further, you can get trapped at a local maximum; there isn't much variation in what companies in sector X will offer you when you restrict the pool of companies to places close to you and (even more importantly, which makes this worse than the politician's case) willing to hire you. >This is a step that does not have an analogous correspondent in the politicians' syllogism. It has a correspondence in the syllogism I was replying to. Sure, you could become self-employed, but in the same way you could also become a politician. But neither a self-employed person nor a single politician can change the situation for everyone else (mind you, this is again worse in the employee's case than the voter's case; politicians often can make huge changes that benefit all voters, one kind employer cannot do that - in fact, cost-cutting and health risk-skirting employers drive employee rights because politicians decide to regulate them). Employment seems to be even more of a sham than democracy.
  - 6y ago

nine_k 6y ago

Democracy has a scaling problem. The further the voter is from the matter of the voting, the less informed the vote is. Voting for local changes or electing an official within your small village or a city precinct works well, because the voters both actually know what the matter is, and directly feel the consequences. This is how it works in the only directly democratic country I know, Switzerland. OTOH voting for a national leader in a country with 100M population cannot enjoy the same effect. Very few people have any opinion about candidates based on more or less close interaction. Neatly all opinions are manufactured by the PR people hired by the candidates, publicity stunts, and the big media. Getting more useful information is hard. This is why elections tend to become a popularity contest and involve emotionally overloaded rooting not unlike on a stadium. This is not how you can make a balanced, rational choice which can keep a democracy running well.

Noumenon72 6y ago
Matthew Yglesias wrote on Substack last week that this has completely changed and is no longer true. Because local newspapers no longer exist, our news consumption has shifted to large, national stories. I know 1000 times more about Trump and AOC than any official in my city precinct. Even when we know a local candidate well and know they bring home the bacon to our district, we often vote based on the national implications of the partisan conflict instead. Yglesias closes by saying, "We need to adjust to a world where information dissemination is not limited by truck routes (this is a good thing!) and we are consequently better informed about bigger units rather than “closer” ones." He suggests that means consolidating levels of government and putting more power into accountable executives. https://www.slowboring.com/p/local-news https://www.slowboring.com/p/local-news
- nine_k 6y ago
  If you know a politician only from media, no matter local or global, you have already lost. I mean knowing an official by knowing what decisions (s)he has made in your local vicinity, which affected you personally. Or knowing by being neighbors. That is, somehow directly.

oneeyedpigeon 6y ago

Here in the UK, at least, this also manifests in the manifesto syllogism: 1. People voted for this party 2. This party's manifesto promised X, y, and z 3. Therefore people voted for X, y, and z

glandium 6y ago
4. The other party's manifesto promised A, B and C 5. Therefore people voted against A, B and C

tpoacher 6y ago

% "I don't care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating." -- Boss Tweed (19th century American politician)

coolgeek 6y ago

Your logical error here is that the "you" in proposition 2 is part of the "we" in proposition 1 Don't get me wrong. There's plenty of problems with the system. But you have the opportunity to participate in choosing the handful of people. If your favored candidate did not get selected, either you failed (you didn't work hard enough), or your candidate failed (for an uncountable number of possible reasons). Also, your conclusion(s) does/do not follow Edit: Of course, if you live in a country where candidates are literally chosen by the state, this does not apply. But it applies in every actually (or reasonably) democratic country

yrimaxi 6y ago
The we are the power elite, you is everyone else. That there is such a thing as a power elite seems obvious enough. Pick a sociology book at random? Political candidates are (in America) in effect picked by moneyed interests, i.e. groups and people who have enough money to throw tens of thousands or millions at political campaigns etc. You can of course volunteer for political candidates, but it’s a safer bet to just have money to spend. > Also, your conclusion(s) does/do not follow That’s the point!