3 ms·

> Election is a bad way to choose almost anything. Except the alternatives! No form of government is more effective, competent, just, or free of corruption.

by mmooss 2y ago

bruce511 2y ago
That's the point the parent made. Elections are suitable for political officers. Once you start electing other jobs, like judges or plumbers, then you get whoever you elected, rather than necessarily a person able to do the job. In other words, getting elected is a specific skill set. Doing the job is a different skill set. In most fields those skill sets do not overlap. Even in govt the overlap is marginal. Which is why some elected officials are pretty useless at actually "governing". To my American friends all I can say is "you voted for this".
- tobbe2064 2y ago
  Well,of course you get who ever you elected, that's a trueism that holds for any method. What method do you prefer?Trust in the market and chose the one with the highest price, or, choose the one recommended by most, aka the popular choice or the elected?
  - bruce511 2y ago
    You're offering two choices which prove the point that electing is a poor way to fill a post. "popularity" does not imply competence. Popularity is easily gamed and bought. Given that unlimited business money can be spent on elections, it's mostly bought. I'm not sure what you mean by market, or highest price, but I assume you mean the above? The opposite of elections is appointment. Based on competence. So, for example, in my company I want job x done well, so I appoint a person based on their ability to do x. Of course this assumes I want x done well. If I'm elected, and I want x done badly, then I can appoint someone based on other factors, like ideology or loyalty etc.
hayst4ck 2y ago
That's false. Everything comes down to good leadership. Monarchies with good leadership very well might have incredibly effective anti-corruption techniques and competency. China is managing a billion people and their infrastructure and tech is incredible. The problems are two fold. The first is vetoing of bad ideas. No leader is right 100% of the time, and when they are wrong, someone must have the power to veto. There must be some way for reason to triumph over power, and a leader who chooses to be responsible is capable of deferring to expertise. The second is succession. A good leader today may be succeeded by rotten leader tomorrow, but both have the same legitimacy, because the legitimacy comes from power alone and not reason. > effective, competent, just, or free of corruption. These things are a result of culture, not a result of the government itself. The government influences culture, but they are first and foremost functions of culture, specifically a culture of tolerating speaking truth to power, dissent, critical thinking, tolerance, and solidarity.
- hnhg 2y ago
  I think people get confused into thinking that democracy is about voting when it is should be about reducing prolonged concentrations of power, because of the innate tendency for it to be abused and hoarded. So to support your point, if your culture does not support the concept of good "democratic" governance, and no one strives for the institutions and constitutions to support it, you might be better off with a benevolent dictator, for as long as they last before a not-so-benevolent one.
  - hayst4ck 2y ago
    Timothy Snyder would encapsulate this idea as "Democracy is not something you are, but something you do." Which makes a lot of sense if you say the same thing about Christianity. Christian isn't something you are, Christianity is something you do. Both have hallowed dogmas that are poorly understood by their followers, the constitution and the bible/teachings of jesus respectively.
  - yyyk 2y ago
    Democracy and elections are not opinion polls. It's a distribution of political power.
ekianjo 2y ago
> free of corruption. There are just plenty examples of corruption among the people we elect, everywhere.
Aspos 2y ago
This is a dangerous axiom which will take you to wrong conclusions. Elected officials may be better, more efficient and less corrupt at a local level, but this does not scale.

> Election is a bad way to choose almost anything. Except the alternatives! No form of government is more effective, competent, just, or free of corruption.

by mmooss 2y ago

> Election is a bad way to choose almost anything. Except the alternatives! No form of government is more effective, competent, just, or free of corruption.

bruce511 2y ago

That's the point the parent made. Elections are suitable for political officers. Once you start electing other jobs, like judges or plumbers, then you get whoever you elected, rather than necessarily a person able to do the job. In other words, getting elected is a specific skill set. Doing the job is a different skill set. In most fields those skill sets do not overlap. Even in govt the overlap is marginal. Which is why some elected officials are pretty useless at actually "governing". To my American friends all I can say is "you voted for this".

tobbe2064 2y ago
Well,of course you get who ever you elected, that's a trueism that holds for any method. What method do you prefer?Trust in the market and chose the one with the highest price, or, choose the one recommended by most, aka the popular choice or the elected?
- bruce511 2y ago
  You're offering two choices which prove the point that electing is a poor way to fill a post. "popularity" does not imply competence. Popularity is easily gamed and bought. Given that unlimited business money can be spent on elections, it's mostly bought. I'm not sure what you mean by market, or highest price, but I assume you mean the above? The opposite of elections is appointment. Based on competence. So, for example, in my company I want job x done well, so I appoint a person based on their ability to do x. Of course this assumes I want x done well. If I'm elected, and I want x done badly, then I can appoint someone based on other factors, like ideology or loyalty etc.

hayst4ck 2y ago

That's false. Everything comes down to good leadership. Monarchies with good leadership very well might have incredibly effective anti-corruption techniques and competency. China is managing a billion people and their infrastructure and tech is incredible. The problems are two fold. The first is vetoing of bad ideas. No leader is right 100% of the time, and when they are wrong, someone must have the power to veto. There must be some way for reason to triumph over power, and a leader who chooses to be responsible is capable of deferring to expertise. The second is succession. A good leader today may be succeeded by rotten leader tomorrow, but both have the same legitimacy, because the legitimacy comes from power alone and not reason. > effective, competent, just, or free of corruption. These things are a result of culture, not a result of the government itself. The government influences culture, but they are first and foremost functions of culture, specifically a culture of tolerating speaking truth to power, dissent, critical thinking, tolerance, and solidarity.

hnhg 2y ago
I think people get confused into thinking that democracy is about voting when it is should be about reducing prolonged concentrations of power, because of the innate tendency for it to be abused and hoarded. So to support your point, if your culture does not support the concept of good "democratic" governance, and no one strives for the institutions and constitutions to support it, you might be better off with a benevolent dictator, for as long as they last before a not-so-benevolent one.
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  Timothy Snyder would encapsulate this idea as "Democracy is not something you are, but something you do." Which makes a lot of sense if you say the same thing about Christianity. Christian isn't something you are, Christianity is something you do. Both have hallowed dogmas that are poorly understood by their followers, the constitution and the bible/teachings of jesus respectively.
- yyyk 2y ago
  Democracy and elections are not opinion polls. It's a distribution of political power.

ekianjo 2y ago

> free of corruption. There are just plenty examples of corruption among the people we elect, everywhere.

Aspos 2y ago

This is a dangerous axiom which will take you to wrong conclusions. Elected officials may be better, more efficient and less corrupt at a local level, but this does not scale.