3 ms·

This actually points at a central problem with modern democracy. People are expected to think when they vote, but most people do not have the base information r

This actually points at a central problem with modern democracy. People are expected to think when they vote, but most people do not have the base information required to make decisions. And so everything descends into PR: stereotypes of righties being better with money, lefties being in thrall to unions, and so on. When it comes time to vote, the PR machines start up and people are made to pretend they are thinking objectively when actually we are about as prepared as we'd be at a wine tasting. The analogy continues, because whatever we decided we think we were well justified later on, regardless of what actually happened. I'm glad I read this article, it's well presented with sources, and debunks some quite important myths.

remarkEon 5y ago
I do not think this is a problem with “modern” democracy, but democracy in general. There’s always been organized mechanisms for convincing people to believe certain things and vote a certain way.
- ilammy 5y ago
  I'd say the whole premise behind voting and democracy is not so much the people voting for something they “want”, but rather not voting for something they “object”. The voting process makes sure that the government doesn't go into the direction that most people don't want it to. Aside from that, government can do whatever it wants (popularly referred to as not honoring the election promises).
meragrin_ 5y ago
> debunks some quite important myths. How so? The chart suggesting Volcker "saved" the US from inflation seems to suggest otherwise. The Fed was already trending towards what the "Volcker Fed" did. The "list of significant deregulations" on Wikipedia is actually listed as "Related legislation". Reagan had a greater number of deregulation legislation listed as directly related to Reagan's administration rather than in the "Related legislation" so there is some game playing going on as far as the significance of each administration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> This actually points at a central problem with modern democracy One explanation of why we should prefer democracy that I quite like goes like this: Democracy is rooted in the belief that more than half the people are right more than half the time It doesn't have to rely on everyone being smart, or even thinking. It only has to rely on the statistical likelihood that, even with all the errors and noise and lack of thinking and even stupidity that might manifest in any individual, if more than half the voters agree on something, there's a better chance that it's the right choice than the wrong one. THere are all kinds of holes that can be poked in this approach, and I sometimes do that, but fundamentally I stand by the basic conception that this describes.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Note that, in case of a representative democracy, it's actually "more than half of the voters can pick a person who is right more than half the time". And I'm not so sure that it's the case when information required to make the choice is lacking, and agitprop is substituted instead.
- VLM 5y ago
  What we have instead is identity politics, which is pretty toxic when mixed with democracy. Eventually we'll have to get rid of one or the other, and its not looking good for democracy at this point.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > What we have instead is identity politics, I'd say that this is a glib simplification that conveys almost no information about the actual state of US politics at any level.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    Identity politics has been a thing longer than a century at this point though?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AlbertCory 5y ago
William F. Buckley (there's a name that ought to trigger you) famously said that he'd rather be governed by 2,000 people chosen at random out of the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. That one's a slam dunk. Who wouldn't?

remarkEon 5y ago

I do not think this is a problem with “modern” democracy, but democracy in general. There’s always been organized mechanisms for convincing people to believe certain things and vote a certain way.

ilammy 5y ago
I'd say the whole premise behind voting and democracy is not so much the people voting for something they “want”, but rather not voting for something they “object”. The voting process makes sure that the government doesn't go into the direction that most people don't want it to. Aside from that, government can do whatever it wants (popularly referred to as not honoring the election promises).

meragrin_ 5y ago

> debunks some quite important myths. How so? The chart suggesting Volcker "saved" the US from inflation seems to suggest otherwise. The Fed was already trending towards what the "Volcker Fed" did. The "list of significant deregulations" on Wikipedia is actually listed as "Related legislation". Reagan had a greater number of deregulation legislation listed as directly related to Reagan's administration rather than in the "Related legislation" so there is some game playing going on as far as the significance of each administration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

> This actually points at a central problem with modern democracy One explanation of why we should prefer democracy that I quite like goes like this: Democracy is rooted in the belief that more than half the people are right more than half the time It doesn't have to rely on everyone being smart, or even thinking. It only has to rely on the statistical likelihood that, even with all the errors and noise and lack of thinking and even stupidity that might manifest in any individual, if more than half the voters agree on something, there's a better chance that it's the right choice than the wrong one. THere are all kinds of holes that can be poked in this approach, and I sometimes do that, but fundamentally I stand by the basic conception that this describes.

int_19h 5y ago
Note that, in case of a representative democracy, it's actually "more than half of the voters can pick a person who is right more than half the time". And I'm not so sure that it's the case when information required to make the choice is lacking, and agitprop is substituted instead.
VLM 5y ago
What we have instead is identity politics, which is pretty toxic when mixed with democracy. Eventually we'll have to get rid of one or the other, and its not looking good for democracy at this point.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > What we have instead is identity politics, I'd say that this is a glib simplification that conveys almost no information about the actual state of US politics at any level.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  Identity politics has been a thing longer than a century at this point though?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

AlbertCory 5y ago

William F. Buckley (there's a name that ought to trigger you) famously said that he'd rather be governed by 2,000 people chosen at random out of the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. That one's a slam dunk. Who wouldn't?