3 ms·
As with software, whatever the real goal is should be decided and then approached directly. Any effect that is brought about as an accidental side effect of an
by lkrubner 4y ago
As with software, whatever the real goal is should be decided and then approached directly. Any effect that is brought about as an accidental side effect of an unrelated architectural decision should be regraded as a flaw in the system.
If we want better local representation, we can strengthen local government, or create governments smaller than a city. We can eliminate geographic districts, as units that elect representatives to some higher level of government, but we can still have excellent local government.
If we want cultural representation, we can create a new branch of government, that allows people to identify as a particular culture, and then vote for members of that culture.
If we want religious representation, we can create a new branch of government, that allows people to identify as a particular religion, and then vote for members of that religion.
If we want racial representation, we can create a new branch of government, that allows people to identify as a particular race, and then vote for members of that race.
If we want language representation, we can create a new branch of government, that allows people to identify as speaking a particular language, and then vote for members who also claim to speak that language.
Again, the same rule we apply to software architecture should apply here. Whatever kind of representation we regard as important, we should approach the matter directly, and not try to achieve the effect accidentally, as the side effect of some other architectural decision.
Indeed, many of the problems we see in our political system are exactly because too many goals are being overloaded on too few institutions. If this was a legacy software app, and I was brought in as a consultant to clean it up, I would immediately suggest that a dramatic increase in both encapsulation and polymorphism was needed, and could only be achieved by introducing new branches of government.
To a limited extent, I implied as much when I wrote about the division of labor and the need for highly specialized committees:
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/why-have-politics-in-the-usa-become?s=w https://demodexio.substack.com/p/why-have-politics-in-the-us...
- admax88qqq 4y agoHow do these multiple branches of government set policy for the population as a whole?
- lkrubner 4y agoThat's an open question and I think everyone would answer it differently. In an earlier essay I suggested that we live in a complex world with a sophisticated division of labor, and therefore all real power should move to the specialized committees. In that model, the legislatures simply appoint people to the committees. If we had 5 legislatures and they each appointed one person per year to a committee, for a term of 5 years, then all the committees would have 25 people. The committees would set policy and pass the laws. I spoke of specialized committees here: https://demodexio.substack.com/p/why-have-politics-in-the-usa-become?s=w https://demodexio.substack.com/p/why-have-politics-in-the-us...
- tptacek 4y agoThe purity of that argument is appealing, but the reality is that the underlying neighborhoods themselves are, literally, gerrymandered into these weird shapes, and trying to decouple districting policy from those early-20th century decisions essentially ratifies the injustice. "This district looks stupid" is not a good enough reason to eliminate Latino representation from Chicago, which (I think?) has more Latino residents than Phoenix and Dallas put together. Drastically increasing the number of representatives sounds like a good solution.
- lkrubner 4y agoAnother approach is to incorporate that neighborhood as its own independent city. I think we should think about these issues creatively, while sticking with the idea whatever the goal, we should approach it directly, rather than achieving the effect accidentally, as a side effect of some other design decision.
- zamfi 4y agoYour proposal is to literally expel from government the people who inhabit a minority neighborhood? Setting entirely aside the questions of morality, you also lose economies of scale by doing this, and there are already hierarchies that enable local governance as well as local representation in regional governance. I'm not saying there aren't ways to improve the system, but what tptacek is trying to say is that "this shit is complicated and all about trade-offs, and you can't always get everything you want". In some ways it's the definition of a wicked problem. It's not about "creative problem-solving towards some goal" it's about balancing competing goals from competing stakeholders. The status quo has stakeholders who benefit and will not like change, and will not like the characterization of the status quo as "an accident" or "side effects of some other design decision".
- lkrubner 4y agoI think I was clear. My proposal is to have no geographic sub-districts to any polity. Everyone in a city should be free to vote for all candidates for city council, everyone in a region should be free to vote for all candidates for the regional assembly, everyone in a country should be free to vote for all candidates for the National Assembly. But if you really wanted to rescue some unique neighborhood, my suggestion is that you do so directly, without trying to achieve the effect as the accidental side effect of an unrelated architectural decision. This sentence has no coherent meaning: "It's not about "creative problem-solving towards some goal" it's about balancing competing goals from competing stakeholders. " There is no meaningful contrast between the two phrases.