3 ms·
In this particular context it seems to just be one of a zoo of competing alternatives with nothing in particular to recommend it, and some serious drawbacks. I
by jerf 5y ago
In this particular context it seems to just be one of a zoo of competing alternatives with nothing in particular to recommend it, and some serious drawbacks.
I've seen in proposed for voting in the real world where you buy the credits with real money in some growing cost-per-credit, as an attempt to control for rich people being able to buy so much more voting power right now through lobbiests. It has a certain cryptonanarchist or radical libertarian appeal, but the engineer in me points out there doesn't appear to be a path from here to there, since among other things you have to figure out how to fully ban any other form of lobbying by the rich, which is simply not practical. Not even if I include "have a violent" revolution as an option, because no plausible violent revolution would adopt this system at the end of it either. I dunno if it's fair to say people are really hardcoded to "one person, one vote", but for whatever reason it is something that you can get people to generally agree as fair, possibly just because everyone can easily see that the instant you visibly deviate from that there's no longer in point in voting because you will never get to the voting phase; the voting body will never again do anything but argue about how to vote.
While I think it's still hopelessly impossible, at least in this context there's some meat to discuss to the proposal, rather than just Yet Another Exotic Voting Method for small groups.
(I have to add visibly there because as previous sentences show in that paragraph, I'm well aware we don't have a "one person, one vote" system in practice. In theory it's a Republic, after all, not a Democracy, and in practice, anyone who buys lobbiests has vastly more voting power than you do. But it looks like we do, so it's stable enough for now. It can even be the case that everyone pretty much realizes it, but it's stable enough. But make it visibly obvious that's not what's happening and the fireworks will fly.)
- dane-pgp 5y ago> you have to figure out how to fully ban any other form of lobbying by the rich In fact, if a society could work out how to do that, they should do that first, and then they might find that all these "let rich people have more voting power" proposals would coincidentally disappear. > it's a Republic, after all, not a Democracy Please don't perpetuate that awful meme. A country can be both, and the US is only "not a democracy" under the most idiosyncratic definition of "democracy". https://mises.org/wire/stop-saying-were-republic-not-democracy https://mises.org/wire/stop-saying-were-republic-not-democra... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-11/is-u-s-republic-or-democracy-why-some-conservatives-pick-a-side https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-11/is-u-s... https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-burmila https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-democrac...
- jerf 5y ago"In fact, if a society could work out how to do that, they should do that first, and then they might find that all these "let rich people have more voting power" proposals would coincidentally disappear." Point! As for "democracy", I'm not particularly convinced the US is a democracy under any definition at this point, honestly, so I can't find it in myself to particularly care which flavor of democracy we most aren't.