4 ms·

But from what I know democracy had no hand in the rise of the Tea Party, apart from the Tea Party consisting of the dêmos. In general, simplifying the situatio

by mtrimpe 13y ago

But from what I know democracy had no hand in the rise of the Tea Party, apart from the Tea Party consisting of the dêmos. In general, simplifying the situation, PR-systems simply give the population more degrees of freedom in steering the government. Even though it's still just a handful of options over a single binary choice I'd argue that this difference is not inconsequential. My usual argument against FPTP is that it's much harder for the population to challenge the two dominant parties in case they choose to collude (or more precisely: impossible to challenge the degree to which they collude) which seems to be the failure mode the US democracy is currently experiencing.

mseebach 13y ago
If it was possible to flat out buy 10% of the US congress with no involvement from the actual democratic process, it would be done more often. The Tea Party might be less grassroots than it lets on, but let's not get carried away. Millions of voters cast votes for tea party candidates in multiple elections, and democracy starts and ends with that fact. The best argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter, yet it's what we have. But instead of arguing over the Tea Party: How has Wilders caused the dominant parties in the Netherlands to collude less than the ruling parties in the US and the UK? Basically, my thesis is that parties are mostly irrelevant. If there are important wishes in the population at large (ie. showing up significantly in polls), those will mostly be accommodated, not because of ideology, but because of self-preservation. For the 99% of stuff that we don't hear and care about in our day-to-day lives, the bureaucracy is in charge in all important aspects, and the iron law of bureaucracy[1] applies supreme. It is a dangerous distraction that changing the voting system actually changes anything that matters. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Iron_Law_of_Bureaucracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Iron_Law_of_Bur...
- mtrimpe 13y ago
  Thanks for the information; so if I understand correctly US democracy mostly comes from which officials inside each party you vote on? As for Wilders, you could say that the dominant parties were all colluding on treating low-wage earning immigrants the same as low-wage earning Dutchmen. As painful as it is, Wilders did result in changing that. As for the dangerous distraction, that could well be true.

by mtrimpe 13y ago

mseebach 13y ago

If it was possible to flat out buy 10% of the US congress with no involvement from the actual democratic process, it would be done more often. The Tea Party might be less grassroots than it lets on, but let's not get carried away. Millions of voters cast votes for tea party candidates in multiple elections, and democracy starts and ends with that fact. The best argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter, yet it's what we have. But instead of arguing over the Tea Party: How has Wilders caused the dominant parties in the Netherlands to collude less than the ruling parties in the US and the UK? Basically, my thesis is that parties are mostly irrelevant. If there are important wishes in the population at large (ie. showing up significantly in polls), those will mostly be accommodated, not because of ideology, but because of self-preservation. For the 99% of stuff that we don't hear and care about in our day-to-day lives, the bureaucracy is in charge in all important aspects, and the iron law of bureaucracy[1] applies supreme. It is a dangerous distraction that changing the voting system actually changes anything that matters. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Iron_Law_of_Bureaucracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Iron_Law_of_Bur...

mtrimpe 13y ago
Thanks for the information; so if I understand correctly US democracy mostly comes from which officials inside each party you vote on? As for Wilders, you could say that the dominant parties were all colluding on treating low-wage earning immigrants the same as low-wage earning Dutchmen. As painful as it is, Wilders did result in changing that. As for the dangerous distraction, that could well be true.