A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive • Hacker News Board

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#341

Post by godelski » Wed, May 08, 2019, 7:11 AM UTC

jakeogh wrote: post #329

godelski wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second sentence of Wikipedia for "Republic" > The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy. We're a democratic republic. Just saying the US is not a democracy but rather a republic is a woefully uninformed statement. They are not disjoint. Now let's stop parroting this phrase once and for all.

Wikipedia is not a source. It's a spot to see what random people wrote about something. Maybe it's useful to find something, often I find it useful to see what is not said, but citing it is pointless unless you drill down to the edit and cite the editor. https://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html The important point is we protect minority positions via inalienable rights. That is not guaranteed in a pure democracy. It tak…

> Wikipedia is not a source.

Yes, I remember when our teachers used to hound this into us. But frankly Wikipedia has been as verifiable as the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you're going to say Wikipedia (the most commonly cited resource) isn't providing a good definition, provide a good source that counters. Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Also, see [0] (a good source) 1b and the discussion below.

If you're going to act high and mighty, do some background research. No one likes an armchair scholar. And if you're going to be a combative armchair scholar, you better do some actual fact checking.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#342

Post by jakeogh » Wed, May 08, 2019, 10:14 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #341

jakeogh wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is not a source. It's a spot to see what random people wrote about something. Maybe it's useful to find something, often I find it useful to see what is not said, but citing it is pointless unless you drill down to the edit and cite the editor. https://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html The important point is we protect minority positions via inalienable rights. That is not guaranteed in a pure democracy. It tak…

> Wikipedia is not a source. Yes, I remember when our teachers used to hound this into us. But frankly Wikipedia has been as verifiable as the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you're going to say Wikipedia (the most commonly cited resource) isn't providing a good definition, provide a good source that counters. Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Also, see [0] (a good source) 1b and the di…

a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

Calling it a Democracy without mentioning the more important word misses the point; your original comment:

The idea of a majority having more power than a minority is, as another user puts it "a feature, not a bug".

That is exactly what our Republic protects against. The minority has the same inalienable rights as the majority.

Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive

#343

Post by youdontknowtho » Tue, May 14, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

heraclius wrote: post #213

youdontknowtho wrote: post #17

"intense preferences of the minority" are enshrined in the constitution. The senate, the electoral college, and the states themselves are designed to protect the minority of property onwers. It's designed to slow progress. Read Madison. Also, I'm sure Bloomberg writers LOVE attempts to replace Democracy with some weird economic neo-market model. Coins...get a grip, man. EDIT: Sorry. "Tokens". Whatever.

I quite understand that there is a tendency to marketise decision-making in an unhelpful fashion, but I’m not entirely sure how this scheme is too much of a problem, beyond using the word “tokens”. Could you elaborate as to the specific problems of this scheme as opposed to those of general attempts to marketise? And “quadratic voting” may have uses beyond the areas governed by the US constitution. Even within those…

I'm not sure how to put this in a way that won't sound offensive. Please cut me some slack in that regard, because I'm honestly not trying to be offensive. I think your description of this is naive in a very serious way.

Here the "marketing" is a big part of the point. Proposing solutions to democratic problems with something derived from economics provides theoretical cover to people who are seeking to undermine democracy in service of capital. The idea that democracy needs to be "more effective" because of some structural issue, not with society but with democracy itself, is incredibly dangerous.

EDIT: I'm rambling, but I think that the article was a type of propaganda. I was also trying to point out that the constitution enshrines some very extreme positions for at least one minority that actually benefits from things like what are described by this article. I don't take it's claims seriously because I believe that it actually exists to present aspects of capitalism as superior to democracy.