3 ms·

Similar situation in the US: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/10/72-of-americans-say-the-us-used-to-be-a-good-example-of-democracy-but-isnt-anym

Similar situation in the US: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/10/72-of-americans-say-the-us-used-to-be-a-good-example-of-democracy-but-isnt-anymore/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/10/72-of-ame... Interesting how a process based on the will of the majority can also be disapproved of by the majority.

vundercind 2y ago
That's just true, but people were wrong before when they thought we were good (and they may be wrong now about why we're a bad example). There's a reason that when we (anyone, really, but even the US) let the policy nerds set up a democracy somewhere else, they usually don't model much or any of it on the US. The system's not been regarded as especially good, as systems of democracy go, since not later than the early 20th century, as it became clear that not only does it have serious problems, but some of those are extremely resistant to repair.
- ericjmorey 2y ago
  I think the 3/5ths compromise is a good highlight of the poorness of the model of democracy the USA established from its formation. "A democracy of the people but only 3/5 of those people who only have a voice by proxy entrusted to their captives", falls quite short of an ideal model.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
    That wouldn't explain why US democracy seems dysfunctional today, though.
- andrekandre 2y ago
  > The system's not been regarded as especially good, as systems of democracy go, since not later than the early 20th century what are some of the problems in your view?
  - vundercind 2y ago
    The FPTP system of elections used for most federal elections in the country is certainly the worst part. Stabilizing at only two viable parties rather than several that must (most of the time) form coalitions to govern causes a bunch of problems, with few benefits. It is also why so much of the rest is hard to fix, including why this system of elections has been so hard to move away from. At the strictly federal level, the notorious electoral college system reinforces FPTP and has accomplished little of its positive intentions, leaving only "give lower-free-population slave states more power" (which has become simply "give lower population states more power" after the civil war) which effect is simply bad, as was the original primary reason for including it (and again, secondary reasons like "direct election of a position like president is kinda dumb [true!] so we should instead vote for trusted, wise representatives to go make the decision for us" never worked as intended, so aren't reasons to keep it) The Supreme Court was recognized as super-dangerous at the founding and the solution some of our much-revered founders provided was "I guess we can just ignore them when they do really bad things?" which definitely seems not great. Lack of a defense against gerrymandering is extremely bad, but file under things that jettisoning FPTP would largely fix without further specific action. The many ill effects of FPTP are why it's so bad. There's some evidence that common law significantly increases the overall cost of government administration over continental systems of jurisprudence, though that's a more-recent and developing area of potential weakness.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
      The crazy thing is that in the recent 2024 US election, there were a number of ballot initiatives to replace FPTP, and FPTP won every time. Ranked choice was even repealed in Alaska. The majority spoke, and they said they prefer an "inferior" system. Democracy has a fascinating "self-refuting" quality to it.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        It kind of stands to reason when you consider the incentives in a hyper-partisan environment. FPTP generally benefits one major party over the other - which party it is varies depending on the location, but either way, it means that the same people who generally run the place and have the most long-term political power in it have the incentive to reject reform. And the vast majority of voters aren't going to delve into the details; if the people whom they generally already vote for tell them that ranked choice etc is a "power grab" by the other guys, they'll believe it. These days, such agitprop is often couched in terms that deliberately evoke various cultural issues - e.g. where Democrats are the ones opposing ranked choice, it is often presented as "diluting the power of minority voters".
lucianbr 2y ago
Homo sapiens is irrational. At least he is not rational all the time. People wanting to have their cake and eat it too, or to impose rules on others but themselves be excepted from it is nearly universal. In any case it's extremely common. This is just the nature of what we are, and so much trouble comes from pretending otherwise.

vundercind 2y ago

That's just true, but people were wrong before when they thought we were good (and they may be wrong now about why we're a bad example). There's a reason that when we (anyone, really, but even the US) let the policy nerds set up a democracy somewhere else, they usually don't model much or any of it on the US. The system's not been regarded as especially good, as systems of democracy go, since not later than the early 20th century, as it became clear that not only does it have serious problems, but some of those are extremely resistant to repair.

ericjmorey 2y ago
I think the 3/5ths compromise is a good highlight of the poorness of the model of democracy the USA established from its formation. "A democracy of the people but only 3/5 of those people who only have a voice by proxy entrusted to their captives", falls quite short of an ideal model.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
  That wouldn't explain why US democracy seems dysfunctional today, though.
andrekandre 2y ago
> The system's not been regarded as especially good, as systems of democracy go, since not later than the early 20th century what are some of the problems in your view?
- vundercind 2y ago
  The FPTP system of elections used for most federal elections in the country is certainly the worst part. Stabilizing at only two viable parties rather than several that must (most of the time) form coalitions to govern causes a bunch of problems, with few benefits. It is also why so much of the rest is hard to fix, including why this system of elections has been so hard to move away from. At the strictly federal level, the notorious electoral college system reinforces FPTP and has accomplished little of its positive intentions, leaving only "give lower-free-population slave states more power" (which has become simply "give lower population states more power" after the civil war) which effect is simply bad, as was the original primary reason for including it (and again, secondary reasons like "direct election of a position like president is kinda dumb [true!] so we should instead vote for trusted, wise representatives to go make the decision for us" never worked as intended, so aren't reasons to keep it) The Supreme Court was recognized as super-dangerous at the founding and the solution some of our much-revered founders provided was "I guess we can just ignore them when they do really bad things?" which definitely seems not great. Lack of a defense against gerrymandering is extremely bad, but file under things that jettisoning FPTP would largely fix without further specific action. The many ill effects of FPTP are why it's so bad. There's some evidence that common law significantly increases the overall cost of government administration over continental systems of jurisprudence, though that's a more-recent and developing area of potential weakness.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
    The crazy thing is that in the recent 2024 US election, there were a number of ballot initiatives to replace FPTP, and FPTP won every time. Ranked choice was even repealed in Alaska. The majority spoke, and they said they prefer an "inferior" system. Democracy has a fascinating "self-refuting" quality to it.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      It kind of stands to reason when you consider the incentives in a hyper-partisan environment. FPTP generally benefits one major party over the other - which party it is varies depending on the location, but either way, it means that the same people who generally run the place and have the most long-term political power in it have the incentive to reject reform. And the vast majority of voters aren't going to delve into the details; if the people whom they generally already vote for tell them that ranked choice etc is a "power grab" by the other guys, they'll believe it. These days, such agitprop is often couched in terms that deliberately evoke various cultural issues - e.g. where Democrats are the ones opposing ranked choice, it is often presented as "diluting the power of minority voters".

lucianbr 2y ago

Homo sapiens is irrational. At least he is not rational all the time. People wanting to have their cake and eat it too, or to impose rules on others but themselves be excepted from it is nearly universal. In any case it's extremely common. This is just the nature of what we are, and so much trouble comes from pretending otherwise.