4 ms·

This is off. Voting is not a system for selecting the best candidate. Voting, in whatever forms it exists, is a system to avoid violence and conflict. Each sid

by maratd 14y ago

This is off. Voting is not a system for selecting the best candidate. Voting, in whatever forms it exists, is a system to avoid violence and conflict. Each side feels it had a fair shot, regardless of outcome. The purpose of voting is to leave you with that feeling, to avoid unpleasant behavior from the losing party. The best person for the job almost never gets it. That's why we don't vote people in when hiring somebody at a company.

diego 14y ago
Yes, and in addition it's also a system to ensure that elected officials and their parties have accountability. If you win an election and then "betray" your voters, you won't be reelected. If you can't be reelected, you could damage the chances of your party. In essence, democracy in its current form is not so much about choosing the right/best candidate. It's more about making sure the winner cannot become a despot.
- bad_user 14y ago
  In addition, people do not even try voting for the best candidate. People usually vote for the candidate whose interests best align with their own interests and if we're talking about that, then we can't avoid talking about compromises. Which is why it's easy to see why preferences between candidates may be non-transitive, as the space we're talking about is no longer one-dimensional so candidates don't have a natural order.
- ontheotherhand 14y ago
  "If you win an election and then "betray" your voters, you won't be reelected." That ain't accountability, that's a joke. If you pay me 5000$ to do a job, and I don't lift a finger, and your "punishment" is that we won't do that a second time, then I have free money and you're a fool. It doesn't hurt the party one bit either; that's the whole point of corporatism, you can swap out individuals while the "brand" rolls on, saying "whoops, bad apple" every 5 seconds, with people forgetting after 2. "It's more about making sure the winner cannot become a despot." Correction: it replaces a single despotic individual with a tag team of people who basically can do whatever they want - within boundaries, sure, they at least have to be somewhat slick about it, and know how to make a puppy face, too; but certainly not within boundaries defined by the actual will of the people who handed their power as souvereigns over to their representatives. Having despotic entities control you is not one iota better than despotic humans, not in the long run. Despotism is marked by the control going only down, accountability going only up -- period. Not by angry men on podiums necessarily, and not by bloodshed. (Not that there isn't plenty bloodshed, but that's besides the point) If you seriously see a huge difference or improvement there, you've fallen for it I'm afraid.
  - maratd 14y ago
    You know, it's pretty easy to poke holes in something. It's another thing entirely to come up with something better. There hasn't been a single political system that hasn't been corrupted.
    - ontheotherhand 14y ago
      "You know, it's pretty easy to poke holes in something. It's another thing entirely to come up with something better." I have no problems with coming up with something better. More like 3 a day before breakfast; I'd just have problems making people actually go along with whatever I would come up with. But you know what? If people are so fucked that even I can't magically solve it, that doesn't mean I can't say they're fucked. It just means they're gonna pout and roll their eyes, none of which is news or unexpected. "There hasn't been a single political system that hasn't been corrupted." What's your point? That therefore criticism isn't allowed? That naive believe in cynical manipulation is not an issue? Also, was I talking about a "system"? No, I was talking about specific circumstances, an actual situation, and individuals and their responsibilitie. But of course, it's easier to just throw some mud into a completely different direction, not hitting anything, and then deluding oneself into having dealt with the issue just nicely, than to actually address any of it.
      - maratd 14y ago
        > I have no problems with coming up with something better. More like 3 a day before breakfast; I'd just have problems making people actually go along with whatever I would come up with. Perhaps because you don't actually share your "something better"? Two posts in, lots of words, still no alternatives.
anigbrowl 14y ago
Voting, in whatever forms it exists, is a system to avoid violence and conflict. If only someone had explained this to your namesake :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Marat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Marat
- saraid216 14y ago
  Not really. Voting only avoids violence and conflict when the possible combatants may actually participate in the vote.
fleitz 14y ago
Actually some workplaces do elect people, and they find equally baffling results that voting people in increases productivity and reduces conflict. As for a more common example of voting with in a company, look at a board of directors. But yes, in general voting is used to provide legitimacy and credibility.
jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
> Each side feels it had a fair shot, regardless of outcome Yeah, but the calm fades away when a big enought amount of people realizes that they are not actually part of neither side and they get angry about it.
justincpollard 14y ago
Whether or not voting is a system to avoid violence and conflict or create accountability, it's dominated by a system that allows for those outcomes (assuming they are binary) and a third: a better candidate is elected to the position. As long as the process is generally known and makes sense (whatever that means), I'd rather have all three outcomes than just two. I think the author's point is a simple and important one.
philwelch 14y ago
There's also the useful property that if everyone votes based on their own selfish interests, the winner will serve the interests of more people than any other candidate.
- glenra 14y ago
  I have two problems with that statement. First off, in practice very few people actually do vote based on their own selfish interests unless you're using a really broad and unusual definition of selfish. People largely vote as a form of signaling - they vote to send a message about how much they care about stuff and to have something in common with their group. (see also: _The Myth of the Rational Voter_) The bigger problem is that there's a logical disconnect between your two clauses. The fact that people vote based on their own selfish interests does NOT actually guarantee the winner will serve their interests. It only would do so if people were really good judges of character and politicians were bad at lying and there were some reliable way to hold politicians to account for what they do. Politicians lie about what they want to do, and we vote for them because we like the lies they tell. When everyone votes for the liar who promises to help everyone's own selfish interest, we get an unusually good liar who actually pursues his own interests when elected. In the Bush v. Gore debate, Bush claimed to be firmly opposed to "nation-building". People who voted for Bush on that basis did NOT get a winner who was serving their interests.

by maratd 14y ago

diego 14y ago

Yes, and in addition it's also a system to ensure that elected officials and their parties have accountability. If you win an election and then "betray" your voters, you won't be reelected. If you can't be reelected, you could damage the chances of your party. In essence, democracy in its current form is not so much about choosing the right/best candidate. It's more about making sure the winner cannot become a despot.

bad_user 14y ago
In addition, people do not even try voting for the best candidate. People usually vote for the candidate whose interests best align with their own interests and if we're talking about that, then we can't avoid talking about compromises. Which is why it's easy to see why preferences between candidates may be non-transitive, as the space we're talking about is no longer one-dimensional so candidates don't have a natural order.
ontheotherhand 14y ago
"If you win an election and then "betray" your voters, you won't be reelected." That ain't accountability, that's a joke. If you pay me 5000$ to do a job, and I don't lift a finger, and your "punishment" is that we won't do that a second time, then I have free money and you're a fool. It doesn't hurt the party one bit either; that's the whole point of corporatism, you can swap out individuals while the "brand" rolls on, saying "whoops, bad apple" every 5 seconds, with people forgetting after 2. "It's more about making sure the winner cannot become a despot." Correction: it replaces a single despotic individual with a tag team of people who basically can do whatever they want - within boundaries, sure, they at least have to be somewhat slick about it, and know how to make a puppy face, too; but certainly not within boundaries defined by the actual will of the people who handed their power as souvereigns over to their representatives. Having despotic entities control you is not one iota better than despotic humans, not in the long run. Despotism is marked by the control going only down, accountability going only up -- period. Not by angry men on podiums necessarily, and not by bloodshed. (Not that there isn't plenty bloodshed, but that's besides the point) If you seriously see a huge difference or improvement there, you've fallen for it I'm afraid.
- maratd 14y ago
  You know, it's pretty easy to poke holes in something. It's another thing entirely to come up with something better. There hasn't been a single political system that hasn't been corrupted.
  - ontheotherhand 14y ago
    "You know, it's pretty easy to poke holes in something. It's another thing entirely to come up with something better." I have no problems with coming up with something better. More like 3 a day before breakfast; I'd just have problems making people actually go along with whatever I would come up with. But you know what? If people are so fucked that even I can't magically solve it, that doesn't mean I can't say they're fucked. It just means they're gonna pout and roll their eyes, none of which is news or unexpected. "There hasn't been a single political system that hasn't been corrupted." What's your point? That therefore criticism isn't allowed? That naive believe in cynical manipulation is not an issue? Also, was I talking about a "system"? No, I was talking about specific circumstances, an actual situation, and individuals and their responsibilitie. But of course, it's easier to just throw some mud into a completely different direction, not hitting anything, and then deluding oneself into having dealt with the issue just nicely, than to actually address any of it.
    - maratd 14y ago
      > I have no problems with coming up with something better. More like 3 a day before breakfast; I'd just have problems making people actually go along with whatever I would come up with. Perhaps because you don't actually share your "something better"? Two posts in, lots of words, still no alternatives.

anigbrowl 14y ago

Voting, in whatever forms it exists, is a system to avoid violence and conflict. If only someone had explained this to your namesake :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Marat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Marat

saraid216 14y ago
Not really. Voting only avoids violence and conflict when the possible combatants may actually participate in the vote.

fleitz 14y ago

Actually some workplaces do elect people, and they find equally baffling results that voting people in increases productivity and reduces conflict. As for a more common example of voting with in a company, look at a board of directors. But yes, in general voting is used to provide legitimacy and credibility.

jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago

> Each side feels it had a fair shot, regardless of outcome Yeah, but the calm fades away when a big enought amount of people realizes that they are not actually part of neither side and they get angry about it.

justincpollard 14y ago

Whether or not voting is a system to avoid violence and conflict or create accountability, it's dominated by a system that allows for those outcomes (assuming they are binary) and a third: a better candidate is elected to the position. As long as the process is generally known and makes sense (whatever that means), I'd rather have all three outcomes than just two. I think the author's point is a simple and important one.

philwelch 14y ago

There's also the useful property that if everyone votes based on their own selfish interests, the winner will serve the interests of more people than any other candidate.

glenra 14y ago
I have two problems with that statement. First off, in practice very few people actually do vote based on their own selfish interests unless you're using a really broad and unusual definition of selfish. People largely vote as a form of signaling - they vote to send a message about how much they care about stuff and to have something in common with their group. (see also: _The Myth of the Rational Voter_) The bigger problem is that there's a logical disconnect between your two clauses. The fact that people vote based on their own selfish interests does NOT actually guarantee the winner will serve their interests. It only would do so if people were really good judges of character and politicians were bad at lying and there were some reliable way to hold politicians to account for what they do. Politicians lie about what they want to do, and we vote for them because we like the lies they tell. When everyone votes for the liar who promises to help everyone's own selfish interest, we get an unusually good liar who actually pursues his own interests when elected. In the Bush v. Gore debate, Bush claimed to be firmly opposed to "nation-building". People who voted for Bush on that basis did NOT get a winner who was serving their interests.