4 ms·

I'd ask you to consider the possibility that it doesn't matter how long an individual serves, what does matter is whether that person's party can lose power. It

I'd ask you to consider the possibility that it doesn't matter how long an individual serves, what does matter is whether that person's party can lose power. It's an argument explored by Achen and Bartels, and I wrote about it here: https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part-1-of https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part...

dragonwriter 5y ago
> what does matter is whether that person's party can lose power. With 15 year terms, that can't happen on any reasonable timetable, either. If you maintained the three-class system, you’d have 1/3 of the Senate elected every five years. If you kept roughly equal sets every two years you'd have 2/15 (13-14 out of 100) every 2 years.
- lkrubner 5y ago
  The risk of losing power could potentially happen every month, if you have elections every month. Electing 3 people a month for 15 years would give a legislature of 540 people, the size of the combined houses of the USA Congress and close in size to the British parliament. I'd suggest every voter gets 2 votes and then the top 3 vote-getters are then elected. Of course, when one side has a large lead, it means they are safe for a few months (if you've got 30 person lead, then you know you are safe for at least 10 months). And also, such a system suggests the whole polity voting for national figures, without representation of specific geographic regions. As with software, it is a set of tradeoffs about what kind of system one wants to has. The important thing to realize is that most of the current problems with democracy can be fixed, by adapting a different architecture, which would have different starting premises. The goal would be to have a government that functions well and which has mechanisms of accountability that limit corruption and abuse.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The risk of losing power could potentially happen every month, if you have elections every month. Electing 3 people a month for 15 years would give a legislature of 540 people, the size of the combined houses of the USA Congress The proposal was for Senators specifically. This is clearly different, but it's not clear what it is. So, is your proposal: (1) to abolish the Senate, and do this in the House, or (2) to abolish the House, and do this to the Senate, maintains equal representation (540 not being divisible by 50 makes this problematic), (3) to abolish the House, and do this to the Senate without equal representation, or (4) to do this to the House, but retain the Senate as is, or (5) something else? Note that #3 and arguably #1 are outside the power of even a Constitutional Amendment, since the power to amend the Constitution explicitly does not extend to removing equal representation of states in the Senate. > Of course, when one side has a large lead, it means they are safe for a few months A 4 seat (<1%) lead is safe for 6 mmonths. A 16 seat (3%) lead is safe for 15 months. A margin the proportional size of that after the 2018 House election in the US would take losing every seat up for election for 3 years, 9 months to lose. These are small margins; a large lead is absolutely secure for lot longer than “a fee months”. > The important thing to realize is that most of the current problems with I’m fully behind that. Long legislative terms just is a very bad idea that is hyperfocused on one (overstated) problem and which makes (almost independent of what else you try to do alongside) most other problems worse.
    - lkrubner 5y ago
      "A margin the proportional size of that after the 2018 House election in the US would take losing every seat up for election for 3 years, 9 months to lose" You make it sound like that is a long time. In Britain, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011 makes it unlikely there will be many elections held at less than 5 years. But having a safe majority that is locked in for longer than 5 years can bring benefits. The evidence is overwhelming that the current majority is, at all times, ignorant, irrational, biased, bigoted and impulsive. Therefore, we should want all real power to be in the hands of the long-term majority, not the current majority. Big changes should come from majorities that manage to survive for several years. I believe you are a software developer? So you should understand the concept that a signal can be derived from a noisy source, given enough time.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > You make it sound like that is a long time. It is compared to the claim that “a large margin is safe for a few months”. > In Britain, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011 makes it unlikely there will be many elections held at less than 5 years. Yes, but it assures that 100% of seats will be elected in 5 years, and that no majority is safe for longer than that and none takes more than a majority of the elections in that time to overturn. > The evidence is overwhelming that the current majority is, at all times, ignorant, irrational, biased, bigoted and impulsive No, the evidence is that effectively representative, responsive democracies produce the best results for their people. The US mostly fails on effective representation, and the proposed change would compound that by making it also fail on responsiveness. > Big changes should come from majorities that manage to survive for several years. Sure, maybe, that's why procedures that require long (e.g., multistage, with legally or practically mandatory delays) process for major changes arguably make sense. But rendering any substantial majority effectively immune to change once established defeats the purpose of that. If the argument is correct at all, it is that big changes should come from legislative majorities that survive for an extended time because they represent a durable majority in the electorate.
mech422 5y ago
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I tend to think of which party is in 'power' as just a proxy for which party gets the biggest bribes :-P But tbh, if I had the answers, I'd run for govt :-D
- salawat 5y ago
  I'm convinced we need more people without answers going in in government. It bugs me that every representative we elect is expected to have their own plan other than to "represent". Fast talk and snappy speeches are cheap. Willingness to acquire deep understanding, be challenged, and even sometimes put your own convictions aside for your constituents, and the systems that exist to serve them? That's hard.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> what does matter is whether that person's party can lose power. With 15 year terms, that can't happen on any reasonable timetable, either. If you maintained the three-class system, you’d have 1/3 of the Senate elected every five years. If you kept roughly equal sets every two years you'd have 2/15 (13-14 out of 100) every 2 years.

lkrubner 5y ago
The risk of losing power could potentially happen every month, if you have elections every month. Electing 3 people a month for 15 years would give a legislature of 540 people, the size of the combined houses of the USA Congress and close in size to the British parliament. I'd suggest every voter gets 2 votes and then the top 3 vote-getters are then elected. Of course, when one side has a large lead, it means they are safe for a few months (if you've got 30 person lead, then you know you are safe for at least 10 months). And also, such a system suggests the whole polity voting for national figures, without representation of specific geographic regions. As with software, it is a set of tradeoffs about what kind of system one wants to has. The important thing to realize is that most of the current problems with democracy can be fixed, by adapting a different architecture, which would have different starting premises. The goal would be to have a government that functions well and which has mechanisms of accountability that limit corruption and abuse.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The risk of losing power could potentially happen every month, if you have elections every month. Electing 3 people a month for 15 years would give a legislature of 540 people, the size of the combined houses of the USA Congress The proposal was for Senators specifically. This is clearly different, but it's not clear what it is. So, is your proposal: (1) to abolish the Senate, and do this in the House, or (2) to abolish the House, and do this to the Senate, maintains equal representation (540 not being divisible by 50 makes this problematic), (3) to abolish the House, and do this to the Senate without equal representation, or (4) to do this to the House, but retain the Senate as is, or (5) something else? Note that #3 and arguably #1 are outside the power of even a Constitutional Amendment, since the power to amend the Constitution explicitly does not extend to removing equal representation of states in the Senate. > Of course, when one side has a large lead, it means they are safe for a few months A 4 seat (<1%) lead is safe for 6 mmonths. A 16 seat (3%) lead is safe for 15 months. A margin the proportional size of that after the 2018 House election in the US would take losing every seat up for election for 3 years, 9 months to lose. These are small margins; a large lead is absolutely secure for lot longer than “a fee months”. > The important thing to realize is that most of the current problems with I’m fully behind that. Long legislative terms just is a very bad idea that is hyperfocused on one (overstated) problem and which makes (almost independent of what else you try to do alongside) most other problems worse.
  - lkrubner 5y ago
    "A margin the proportional size of that after the 2018 House election in the US would take losing every seat up for election for 3 years, 9 months to lose" You make it sound like that is a long time. In Britain, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011 makes it unlikely there will be many elections held at less than 5 years. But having a safe majority that is locked in for longer than 5 years can bring benefits. The evidence is overwhelming that the current majority is, at all times, ignorant, irrational, biased, bigoted and impulsive. Therefore, we should want all real power to be in the hands of the long-term majority, not the current majority. Big changes should come from majorities that manage to survive for several years. I believe you are a software developer? So you should understand the concept that a signal can be derived from a noisy source, given enough time.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > You make it sound like that is a long time. It is compared to the claim that “a large margin is safe for a few months”. > In Britain, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011 makes it unlikely there will be many elections held at less than 5 years. Yes, but it assures that 100% of seats will be elected in 5 years, and that no majority is safe for longer than that and none takes more than a majority of the elections in that time to overturn. > The evidence is overwhelming that the current majority is, at all times, ignorant, irrational, biased, bigoted and impulsive No, the evidence is that effectively representative, responsive democracies produce the best results for their people. The US mostly fails on effective representation, and the proposed change would compound that by making it also fail on responsiveness. > Big changes should come from majorities that manage to survive for several years. Sure, maybe, that's why procedures that require long (e.g., multistage, with legally or practically mandatory delays) process for major changes arguably make sense. But rendering any substantial majority effectively immune to change once established defeats the purpose of that. If the argument is correct at all, it is that big changes should come from legislative majorities that survive for an extended time because they represent a durable majority in the electorate.

mech422 5y ago

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I tend to think of which party is in 'power' as just a proxy for which party gets the biggest bribes :-P But tbh, if I had the answers, I'd run for govt :-D

salawat 5y ago
I'm convinced we need more people without answers going in in government. It bugs me that every representative we elect is expected to have their own plan other than to "represent". Fast talk and snappy speeches are cheap. Willingness to acquire deep understanding, be challenged, and even sometimes put your own convictions aside for your constituents, and the systems that exist to serve them? That's hard.