4 ms·

TL;DR The problem wont fix its self. The system will prevent solutions that limit it. Nothing will change until you do something. That something needs to be wi

TL;DR The problem wont fix its self. The system will prevent solutions that limit it. Nothing will change until you do something. That something needs to be withing the current rules of the game. What I find most amazing about any analysis piece on the problems of democracy and what to do about it is that they are almost always self-defeating. By this, I mean the very proposal to solve the problem prevents the problem from being solved. The article is correct about what (one of) the problem is. Institutional corruption is analogous to the principal-agent problem except the issue is the asymmetry influence, not information. But suggesting that the existing 'system' recognise the problem and then take action against itself is pure naivety. If politicians, those empowered by us to represent us, are being corrupted by special interest enough not to represent our interests, then those same special interests are going to ensure that measures to restrict their influence are thwarted. The system can't be changed from the outside without revolution, and revolution won't happen until things get really bad (and then generally turn out just as bad later) The problem of special interest can only occur when the net benefits (expected outcome - cost of lobbying) for special interest groups exceed the net costs for individuals to fight it. Sadly, the benefit to the few is great and despite a net social cost, spread amongst the population the cost to the many is little. The only way to solve the problem is to do so in a way that doesn't change the system. One way of doing this (and the only viable option I can think of) is to form a non-partisan political party who's only policy is to do what the electorate tells it. The candidate signs a legally binding contract to vote according to the will of their electorate and some kind of public/electronic forum allows issues to be discussed and voted. As long as everything is sailing along nicely, you wouldn't have to have any involvement if you didn't want. But, if a bad law is proposed (SOPA comes to mind), then there is no way it could pass if the majority was against it. I'm sure that there will be opposition to this - it is devolving power to the populous and making politicians simple spokespeople, not deciders of the public will - but isn't this what #occupy needs? A way to use the existing system to devolve power to the 99% (well actually to the 100%).

leot 15y ago
The players within a game can be acting in a way they find distasteful, but which is nonetheless required of them by the rules. Students can be compelled to cheat if they perceive that it is widespread. Professors inflate their grades so their students are not disadvantaged upon graduation. Journalists "dumb down" their writing in order to better compete. Cyclists take dangerous drugs in order to stand a chance of winning against others they believe to be doing so as well. In these tragedy-of-the-commons types of scenarios, all can be willing to agree to a change of the rules, so long as no actor gains immediate "unfair" advantage. It's my personal opinion that most people in D.C. are fundamentally smart and good-hearted. Unfortunately, the euphemisms of spin constitute their thought processes. This, organized by the corrupting influence of money, has led in aggregate to delusion and dependency. Rules-changing legislation is, hopefully, possible -- though perhaps only after beltway-types can be freed from self-deception.
- davekinkead 15y ago
  'In these tragedy-of-the-commons types of scenarios, all can be willing to agree to a change of the rules, so long as no actor gains immediate "unfair" advantage.' That, sadly, is why I am so pessimistic about political change via the current advocacy model. Tragedy of the common's type situations can often be avoided if enough players can agree to a some convention or code of behaviour. The problem with special interest in politics is that even if every politician could agree that the current way the game is played is destructive, special interest would actively work against reform. Change under the current system is reliant on the altruism of those in power to limit that power.
  - shasta 15y ago
    I don't think change is impossible in our current system of government. The idea just needs to spread that reform is more important than how that reform is perceived to affect any pet political issue, because it will improve the outcome of every other issue. I don't sense much momentum behind that meme, though.

leot 15y ago

The players within a game can be acting in a way they find distasteful, but which is nonetheless required of them by the rules. Students can be compelled to cheat if they perceive that it is widespread. Professors inflate their grades so their students are not disadvantaged upon graduation. Journalists "dumb down" their writing in order to better compete. Cyclists take dangerous drugs in order to stand a chance of winning against others they believe to be doing so as well. In these tragedy-of-the-commons types of scenarios, all can be willing to agree to a change of the rules, so long as no actor gains immediate "unfair" advantage. It's my personal opinion that most people in D.C. are fundamentally smart and good-hearted. Unfortunately, the euphemisms of spin constitute their thought processes. This, organized by the corrupting influence of money, has led in aggregate to delusion and dependency. Rules-changing legislation is, hopefully, possible -- though perhaps only after beltway-types can be freed from self-deception.

davekinkead 15y ago
'In these tragedy-of-the-commons types of scenarios, all can be willing to agree to a change of the rules, so long as no actor gains immediate "unfair" advantage.' That, sadly, is why I am so pessimistic about political change via the current advocacy model. Tragedy of the common's type situations can often be avoided if enough players can agree to a some convention or code of behaviour. The problem with special interest in politics is that even if every politician could agree that the current way the game is played is destructive, special interest would actively work against reform. Change under the current system is reliant on the altruism of those in power to limit that power.
- shasta 15y ago
  I don't think change is impossible in our current system of government. The idea just needs to spread that reform is more important than how that reform is perceived to affect any pet political issue, because it will improve the outcome of every other issue. I don't sense much momentum behind that meme, though.