3 ms·

Well the obvious solution is take away the vote for over-65s! /s … maybe

by flkiwi 8mo ago

HPsquared 8mo ago
It's not like voting does anything, anyway. Once elected, they do what they want.
- zdc1 8mo ago
  The purpose of a system is what it does. There's lots of literature on what the best, or at least better, voting systems (hello preference voting) and decision making approaches are. Getting them implemented is another story.
  - jstanley 8mo ago
    Conversely, https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpose-of https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...
    - TimorousBestie 8mo ago
      Scott aggressively missing the point of Beer’s maxim is not a counter-argument. Making a specific point would be more persuasive than a mere link.
      - jstanley 8mo ago
        I don't have a view on the main thrust of the comment, but "the purpose of a system is what it does" is very obviously wrong (as detailed in the linked blog post) and that is what I was responding to.
        zdc1 8mo ago
        I believe we say "the purpose of a system is what it does" is to also poke at the fact that there are mechanisms and design decisions (tradeoffs) at play that lead to certain results, and that if we want to change outcomes, we need to change the system. Votes matter more in some systems than others. Preference voting allows for smaller parties to more easily gain seats while first-past-the-post supports two-party systems. In the UK and AU, the prime minister must hold a seat, and so can be removed from parliament through (a subset of) citizen votes removing them from their seat, even if the majority party stays in power. In the US, the President (who can issue executive orders) is elected by an electoral college--none of whom are directly elected by citizen votes. Maybe it's not a big conspiracy, but these systems are doing what they are known to do, and will do so unless they are changed. Of course there are systems in place to change these systems, which are also quite hard to utilise. And strangely (or not), no one is rushing to improve voter power and representation. So there's some interesting questions there around what changes can be made that would best improve representation, and what could be blocking those changes from being made.
- steveBK123 8mo ago
  I’ve come around to the belief that the biggest benefit of democracy is not choosing the best and wisest leaders. The benefit is the regular ability to remove bad leaders. It doesn’t always happen as fast as we want but it happens eventually. It’s not perfect, but imagine your least favorite president instead presiding for decades until death or coup.
mikkupikku 8mo ago
They do have less stake in the future and want short term policy payoffs...
generic92034 8mo ago
Combine that with the initiatives of many a conservative or liberal political party to raise the retirement age beyond or up to 70 years. Yeah, you have to work but you are not allowed to drive or vote any longer. Sounds fair.

Well the obvious solution is take away the vote for over-65s! /s … maybe

by flkiwi 8mo ago

Well the obvious solution is take away the vote for over-65s! /s … maybe

HPsquared 8mo ago

It's not like voting does anything, anyway. Once elected, they do what they want.

zdc1 8mo ago
The purpose of a system is what it does. There's lots of literature on what the best, or at least better, voting systems (hello preference voting) and decision making approaches are. Getting them implemented is another story.
- jstanley 8mo ago
  Conversely, https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpose-of https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...
  - TimorousBestie 8mo ago
    Scott aggressively missing the point of Beer’s maxim is not a counter-argument. Making a specific point would be more persuasive than a mere link.
    - jstanley 8mo ago
      I don't have a view on the main thrust of the comment, but "the purpose of a system is what it does" is very obviously wrong (as detailed in the linked blog post) and that is what I was responding to.
      - zdc1 8mo ago
        I believe we say "the purpose of a system is what it does" is to also poke at the fact that there are mechanisms and design decisions (tradeoffs) at play that lead to certain results, and that if we want to change outcomes, we need to change the system. Votes matter more in some systems than others. Preference voting allows for smaller parties to more easily gain seats while first-past-the-post supports two-party systems. In the UK and AU, the prime minister must hold a seat, and so can be removed from parliament through (a subset of) citizen votes removing them from their seat, even if the majority party stays in power. In the US, the President (who can issue executive orders) is elected by an electoral college--none of whom are directly elected by citizen votes. Maybe it's not a big conspiracy, but these systems are doing what they are known to do, and will do so unless they are changed. Of course there are systems in place to change these systems, which are also quite hard to utilise. And strangely (or not), no one is rushing to improve voter power and representation. So there's some interesting questions there around what changes can be made that would best improve representation, and what could be blocking those changes from being made.
steveBK123 8mo ago
I’ve come around to the belief that the biggest benefit of democracy is not choosing the best and wisest leaders. The benefit is the regular ability to remove bad leaders. It doesn’t always happen as fast as we want but it happens eventually. It’s not perfect, but imagine your least favorite president instead presiding for decades until death or coup.

mikkupikku 8mo ago

They do have less stake in the future and want short term policy payoffs...

generic92034 8mo ago

Combine that with the initiatives of many a conservative or liberal political party to raise the retirement age beyond or up to 70 years. Yeah, you have to work but you are not allowed to drive or vote any longer. Sounds fair.