Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elections are bad for democracy

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 86 posts

Re: Elections are bad for democracy

#41

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

nemo44x wrote: post #32

Sortition is just too corruptible and disagreeable I would think. You can sample a society and "educate" them but then that process will forever be under fire too. I believe that in a democracy things should be hard to change. Changing things should take a super majority. This will lead to more compromise and possibly better results for all. If there was a 2/3 requirement to change things then there would be little r…

If you impose too high a barrier to change, then laws cannot stay in sync with society, and that will lead to severe unrest.

Re: Elections are bad for democracy

#42

Post by protomyth »

f_allwein wrote: post #2

Bit long winded, but boils down to recommending sortition, which I had not heard of. Interesting: "With sortition, you do not ask everyone to vote on an issue few people really understand, but you draft a random sample of the population and make sure they come to the grips with the subject matter in order to take a sensible decision."

We'll pick a small group of people, and feed them an education that will make them vote our way.

Sounds like how many prosecutors use grand juries in the USA these days.

Re: Elections are bad for democracy

#43

Post by TeMPOraL »

brooklyndavs wrote: post #29
reitanqild wrote: post #19

Now, where is the "wisdom of the crowds" when it comes to decisions that we, "the elites", don't like? This annoys me. There is no doubt the result would have been "very fair" if it had been remain. What we are seeing now is IMO hypocrisy and contempt of ordinary people at a scary level. Now, did I want Brexit? No (I had no opinion). Do I think they should have requested more than 50% of the votes? As a conservative…

Its hypocrisy and contempt coming from "elites" via the very institutions that are critical to a democracy, the media. When the 4th estate works in a neutral, non-biased, fact based way democracy can work. However, once you have major media bought and paid for by those "elites" to push some billionaire's agenda you sow distrust in media. Once the voters don't have a place to go for trusted information all bets are of…

> institutions that are critical to a democracy, the media. When the 4th estate works in a neutral, non-biased, fact based way democracy can work.

I don't believe mainstream media ever worked in a neutral, non-biased, fact based way. They definitely have not been for the past few decades I've been on this planet. Maybe in the past they were more under control by various "elites", government or otherwise. Now, in the west, they are "free" - which means they actually serve Moloch[0], by writing what sells. That is, the most outrage-inducing, biased misrepresentations (and often outright lies) they can get away with.

Not sure what is worse[1], but it doesn't matter much. The point is, media isn't "a place to go for trusted information", it never has been, and if this is an institution "critical to democracy", then we have a big problem right here.

[0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

[1] - "elites" at least care about something identifiably human; metaphorical Moloch does not, so the outcome may be very well something nobody wanted, including any of the "elites"

Re: Elections are bad for democracy

#44

Post by nutheracc »

jerf wrote: post #7

You know, there is so much "Blah blah blah" about how bad democracy is, implicitly in context because "I think it came to the wrong conclusion" (which I , that I really expected the article to segue into something that basicaly amounted to "elites should just be given the power". I expected all the blah blah was trying to obfuscate this. But that's not where it went. If you are interested in reading the whole article…

Could it be argued that an understanding of how x works is irrelevant, only the outcome matters, in that individuals who don't understand the workings of x are still able to tell if the outcome is positive or negative for them, and vote on that.

Re: Elections are bad for democracy

#45

Post by cannam »

alain94040 wrote: post #5

I propose a simple fix for major elections such as referendums and presidential elections. I call it the "really?" approach: An election needs to get the same results twice back to back. So for instance, you could replace the primaries and November presidential elections with that system. Vote once: whoever is first needs to win the next round to become president. Candidates may decide to drop out, or not. The public…

"It is also their general practice to deliberate upon affairs of weight when they are drunk; and then on the morrow, when they are sober, the decision to which they came the night before is put before them by the master of the house in which it was made; and if it is then approved of, they act on it; if not, they set it aside. Sometimes, however, they are sober at their first deliberation, but in this case they always reconsider the matter under the influence of wine."

(Herodotus on the Persians, http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-persians...)

Re: Elections are bad for democracy

#46

Post by zepto »

thr329889 wrote: post #9

Democracy is not failing, but elites do. You need to educate people, rather than labeling everyone who disagrees as a racist.

As someone who is actively anti-racist, I weirdly find myself partially agreeing with you.

Racism is hard to overcome and widespread. People are not either 'racist' or 'not racist'. Certainly people can be pro-racism or anti-racist in their intentions, but that is separate from how we actually act, since a lot of racism is unconscious and invisible.

Labeling actions and activities and even groups as racist is necessary, because we need to become conscious of these forces if we are ever to overcome them.

However, whether labeled as racist or not, everyone's voice needs to be heard in the political process. So where I agree with you is in using the label of racism as a tool to silence or ignore people.

Re: Elections are bad for democracy

#47

Post by tremon »

reitanqild wrote: post #23
alienasa wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the whole article? His most significant proposal is that modern democracies adjust their procedures to use something called "sortition" that dates back to ancient Greece. In sortition, rather than polling the entire populace about complicated issues on which they are likely not well informed, we select a balanced random sample of people from the populace , provide them information, and then allow them to…

Sortition is almost what we have elected politicians for isn't it? The default case? Referendums are for very important cases were we suspect politicians are out of touch with ordinary people. This has been a nagging issue in UK for years and finally they figured it was better to ask the people.

Sortition is based on chance, instead of agreeableness.

Referendums are a great idea, but I think that the British yes/no vote was way too simple to game. Using hindsight to save the day, given that there appears to be no gameplan for where to go now, maybe the different options should have been explored before putting it to a vote:

* remain in the EU

* leave the EU, remain in the single market

* leave the single market

* leave the single market, destroy the chunnel

At least with a referendum like that, you force the people to have a content-filled opinion, instead of relying just on an empty "no". That also reduces the options for tea-leaf reading by the losing side.

Re: Elections are bad for democracy

#48

Post by hackuser »

brooklyndavs wrote: post #29
reitanqild wrote: post #19

Now, where is the "wisdom of the crowds" when it comes to decisions that we, "the elites", don't like? This annoys me. There is no doubt the result would have been "very fair" if it had been remain. What we are seeing now is IMO hypocrisy and contempt of ordinary people at a scary level. Now, did I want Brexit? No (I had no opinion). Do I think they should have requested more than 50% of the votes? As a conservative…

Its hypocrisy and contempt coming from "elites" via the very institutions that are critical to a democracy, the media. When the 4th estate works in a neutral, non-biased, fact based way democracy can work. However, once you have major media bought and paid for by those "elites" to push some billionaire's agenda you sow distrust in media. Once the voters don't have a place to go for trusted information all bets are of…

> once you have major media bought and paid for by those "elites" to push some billionaire's agenda you sow distrust in media. Once the voters don't have a place to go for trusted information all bets are off...

I don't think this is what's happening. Much of the media - especially the Murdoch/Fox empire which includes many of the most popular news outlets in the US and UK - sells anger, distrust of government and 'mainstream media' (which somehow doesn't include Murdoch's companies), and outright lies and propaganda.

IMHO, that's where much of the distrust comes from; it's nothing more complex than a propaganda campaign.

Re: Elections are bad for democracy

#49

Post by tremon »

nutheracc wrote: post #44
jerf wrote: post #7

You know, there is so much "Blah blah blah" about how bad democracy is, implicitly in context because "I think it came to the wrong conclusion" (which I , that I really expected the article to segue into something that basicaly amounted to "elites should just be given the power". I expected all the blah blah was trying to obfuscate this. But that's not where it went. If you are interested in reading the whole article…

Could it be argued that an understanding of how x works is irrelevant, only the outcome matters, in that individuals who don't understand the workings of x are still able to tell if the outcome is positive or negative for them, and vote on that.

Not in this case. The full outcome of the Brexit vote will not become clear for another ten years, probably. Both sides have tried to win over voters by scheming with "irrefutable facts" that clearly showed the other side's facts were wrong.

Re: Elections are bad for democracy

#50

Post by TeMPOraL »

reitanqild wrote: post #23
alienasa wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the whole article? His most significant proposal is that modern democracies adjust their procedures to use something called "sortition" that dates back to ancient Greece. In sortition, rather than polling the entire populace about complicated issues on which they are likely not well informed, we select a balanced random sample of people from the populace , provide them information, and then allow them to…

Sortition is almost what we have elected politicians for isn't it? The default case? Referendums are for very important cases were we suspect politicians are out of touch with ordinary people. This has been a nagging issue in UK for years and finally they figured it was better to ask the people.

The problem with elected politicians is that politics is a career path. By the time you get to the position of being electable, you're likely knee-deep in shady deals, and when you get elected, the pressure only increases.

While there may be other downsides of sortition to consider[0], it at least seems to avoid this problem - since each issue is considered by people in isolation, there's no point in trying to make deals, since the next time around someone else will be chosen to vote.

That said, we have XXI century now - why not try and let everyone vote on everything? I think the idea is sometimes called "liquid democracy".

[0] - one downside that comes to mind is a lack of context and inability to form a coherent strategy; it's already one of the biggest problems with democracy, and that would only deepen it

Post reply on HN