# Electoral reform



## Jack Haywood (May 7, 2017)

What's your opinion on electoral reform? Personally, I think it's about time it happened and that STV or a range voting system is best because they are both best at catering to the tastes of the electorate AND preserving political stability.


----------



## Beaniebon (May 8, 2017)

Someone who gets the most votes should win hands down. It's retarded that in the US it's state by state. It's virtually pointless to vote in solid states whether you be in Cali or Mississippi. I know people complain about not wanting California to decide the election but equal representation is what the senate and house are for. One person should equal one vote always who the fuck where they live.


----------



## Jack Haywood (May 8, 2017)

Beaniebon said:


> Someone who gets the most votes should win hands down. It's exceptional that in the US it's state by state. It's virtually pointless to vote in solid states whether you be in Cali or Mississippi. I know people complain about not wanting California to decide the election but equal representation is what the senate and house are for. One person should equal one vote always who the fuck where they live.



On the other hand, though, the USA isn't really a nation state in and of itself like what Europe has several of. It isn't called the United *STATES* for nothing. I agree that they should change their system, though, using range voting instead.


----------



## Cthulu (May 8, 2017)

THE EXTENT of the fall of a body is always measured by the distance between its momentary position and the one it originally occupied. The same is true of nations and states. A decisive significance must be ascribed to their previous position or rather elevation. Only what is accustomed to rise above the common limit can fall and crash to a manifest low This is what makes the collapse of the Reich so hard and terrible for every thinking and feeling man, since it brought a crash from heights which today, in view of the depths of our present degradation, are scarcely conceivable.


----------



## ICametoLurk (May 8, 2017)

Die Democratic Swine


----------



## DuskEngine (May 8, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> THE EXTENT of the fall of a body is always measured by the distance between its momentary position and the one it originally occupied. The same is true of nations and states. A decisive significance must be ascribed to their previous position or rather elevation. Only what is accustomed to rise above the common limit can fall and crash to a manifest low This is what makes the collapse of the Reich so hard and terrible for every thinking and feeling man, since it brought a crash from heights which today, in view of the depths of our present degradation, are scarcely conceivable.



When you vote for FPTP, you vote for _Hitler.
_
EDIT: OP let people see who voted for what. I'm curious.


----------



## AnOminous (May 8, 2017)

Jack Haywood said:


> What's your opinion on electoral reform? Personally, I think it's about time it happened and that STV or a range voting system is best because they are both best at catering to the tastes of the electorate AND preserving political stability.



Put me in charge of everything.  Then I'll kill all the bad people and everything will be great.


----------



## More Spicey Than Coolwhip (May 8, 2017)

In case some Kiwis are not sure what some of the options mean, here is a video describing single transferable voting. 






If you look on the guys channel he has videos on some of the other forms of voting as well.


----------



## AnOminous (May 8, 2017)

More Spicey Than Coolwhip said:


> In case some Kiwis are not sure what some of the options mean, here is a video describing single transferable voting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He's obviously a furfag of some sort.


----------



## Cthulu (May 8, 2017)

DuskEngine said:


> When you vote for FPTP, you vote for _Hitler.
> _
> EDIT: OP let people see who voted for what. I'm curious.


An essential characteristic of what are called the great questions of the time is that thousands undertake the task of solving them and that many feel themselves called to this task: yea, even that Destiny itself has proposed many for the choice, so that through the free play of forces the stronger and bolder shall finally be victorious and to him shall be entrusted the task of solving the problem. 






Thus it may happen that for centuries many are discontented with the form in which their religious life expresses itself and yearn for a renovation of it; and so it may happen that through this impulse of the soul some dozens of men may arise who believe that, by virtue of their understanding and their knowledge, they are called to solve the religious difficulties of the time and accordingly present themselves as the prophets of a new teaching or at least as declared adversaries of the standing beliefs. 





Here also it is certain that the natural law will take its course, inasmuch as the strongest will be destined to fulfil the great mission. But usually the others are slow to acknowledge that only one man is called. On the contrary, they all believe that they have an equal right to engage in the solution of the diffculties in question and that they are equally called to that task. Their contemporary world is generally quite unable to decide which of all these possesses the highest gifts and accordingly merits the support of all. 





So in the course of centuries, or indeed often within the same epoch, different men establish different movements to struggle towards the same end. At least the end is declared by the founders of the movements to be the same, or may be looked upon as such by the masses of the people. The populace nourishes vague desires and has only general opinions, without having any precise notion of their own ideals and desires or of the question whether and how it is impossible for these ideals and desires to be fulfilled. 





The tragedy lies in the fact that many men struggle to reach the same objective by different roads, each one genuinely believing in his own mission and holding himself in duty bound to follow his own road without any regard for the others. 





These movements, parties, religious groups, etc., originate entirely independently of one another out of the general urge of the time, and all with a view to working towards the same goal. It may seem a tragic thing, at least at first sight, that this should be so, because people are too often inclined to think that forces which are dispersed in different directions would attain their ends far more quickly and more surely if they were united in one common effort. But that is not so. For Nature herself decides according to the rules of her inexorable logic. She leaves these diverse groups to compete with one another and dispute the palm of victory and thus she chooses the clearest, shortest and surest way along which she leads the movement to its final goal. 





How could one decide from outside which is the best way, if the forces at hand were not allowed free play, if the final decision were to rest with the doctrinaire judgment of men who are so infatuated with their own superior knowledge that their minds are not open to accept the indisputable proof presented by manifest success, which in the last analysis always gives the final confirmation of the justice of a course of action. 





Hence, though diverse groups march along different routes towards the same objective, as soon as they come to know that analogous efforts are being made around them, they will have to study all the more carefully whether they have chosen the best way and whether a shorter way may not be found and how their efforts can best be employed to reach the objective more quickly. 





Through this rivalry each individual protagonist develops his faculties to a still higher pitch of perfection and the human race has frequently owed its progress to the lessons learned from the misfortunes of former attempts which have come to grief. Therefore we may conclude that we come to know the better ways of reaching final results through a state of things which at first sight appeared tragic; namely, the initial dispersion of individual efforts, wherein each group was unconsciously responsible for such dispersion. 





In studying the lessons of history with a view to finding a way for the solution of the German problem, the prevailing opinion at one time was that there were two possible paths along which that problem might be solved and that these two paths should have united from the very beginning. The chief representatives and champions of these two paths were Austria and Prussia respectively, Habsburg and Hohenzollern. All the rest, according to this prevalent opinion, ought to have entrusted their united forces to the one or the other party. But at that time the path of the most prominent representative, the Habsburg, would have been taken, though the Austrian policy would never have led to the foundation of a united German Reich. 





Finally, a strong and united German Reich arose out of that which many millions of Germans deplored in their hearts as the last and most terrible manifestation of our fratricidal strife. The truth is that the German Imperial Crown was retrieved on the battle field of Königgrätz and not in the fights that were waged before Paris, as was commonly asserted afterwards. 





Thus the foundation of the German Reich was not the consequence of any common will working along common lines, but it was much more the outcome of a deliberate struggle for hegemony, though the protagonists were often hardly conscious of this. And from this struggle Prussia finally came out victorious. Anybody who is not so blinded by partisan politics as to deny this truth will have to agree that the so-called wisdom of men would never have come to the same wise decision as the wisdom of Life itself, that is to say, the free play of forces, finally brought to realization. For in the German lands of two hundred years before who would seriously have believed that Hohenzollern Prussia, and not Habsburg, would become the germ cell, the founder and the tutor of the new Reich? And, on the other hand, who would deny today that Destiny thus acted wiser than human wisdom. Who could now imagine a German Reich based on the foundations of an effete and degenerate dynasty?


----------



## AnOminous (May 8, 2017)

It is delicious pasta, you must ignore it.


----------



## DirkBloodStormKing (May 8, 2017)

I would actually go with Single Transferrable Vote and do it the Australian way. Mainly because it would actually allow third party candidates to have a chance at winning elections and people would be able to vote their conscience, not to mention they get to pick second or third choices as well. Plus, the votes should be proportional.


----------



## Elwood P. Dowd (May 8, 2017)

Beaniebon said:


> I know people complain about not wanting California to decide the election but equal representation is what the senate and house are for. One person should equal one vote always who the fuck where they live.



The Senate is anything BUT "equal representation." The top four states' total population  is ~ 85 million, and they send 8 senators. The bottom four states is maybe 4 million, and they send ... 8 senators.


----------



## Jack Haywood (May 8, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> An essential characteristic of what are called the great questions of the time is that thousands undertake the task of solving them and that many feel themselves called to this task: yea, even that Destiny itself has proposed many for the choice, so that through the free play of forces the stronger and bolder shall finally be victorious and to him shall be entrusted the task of solving the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What... the... actual... fuck...


----------



## Ravelord (May 8, 2017)

Meh, I think the US current system kinda compensates itself and avoids a massive creation of representatives. In Spain we have a set number of representatives, but the parties get members by reaching a certain number of voters (grouped by autonomic communities). That way in case even if a party has majority (but not absolute majority) it could still lose if it failed to pact with smaller parties than tend to dominate certain autonomic communities. By only counting the number of votes our RW party would have won inmediately, rather than have him as a president in functions for a year because the left couldn't bring themselves to make a damn pact. 

So yeah, I think all those who think that only number of voters should count, I would say think again. But that's just my two cents.


----------



## Autistic-No-Yari (May 8, 2017)

Beaniebon said:


> Someone who gets the most votes should win hands down. It's exceptional that in the US it's state by state. It's virtually pointless to vote in solid states whether you be in Cali or Mississippi. I know people complain about not wanting California to decide the election but equal representation is what the senate and house are for. One person should equal one vote always who the fuck where they live.



That would've led to Hilary and Al Gore. I completely disagree. The majority isn't always right.


----------



## Eldritch (May 8, 2017)

Only property-owners and veterans should vote. Only those with something to lose should be allowed to play the game.

STV as explained using cute animals seems like a good system.


----------



## TrannyLindsayLohan (May 8, 2017)

The political dynamics of the United States are more analogous to an empire than a conventional nation-state  IMO. The system is geared so all provinces get some say, because it should be pretty clear why an emperor installed by a small handful of provinces while being deeply unpopular in the rest could easily lead to an explosive situation.


----------



## More Spicey Than Coolwhip (May 8, 2017)

If you wanted to take baby steps with voter reform one might suggest stopping the "winner take all" aspect of the electoral votes in most of the states. There is a decent argument against a strict popular vote by pointing out that only a few cities would always determine the election, but I'm not sure how much you can justify counting a state that's half-in-half as being a fully blue/red state just because one margin is slightly higher.


----------



## Autistic-No-Yari (May 8, 2017)

DirkBloodStormKing said:


> I would actually go with Single Transferrable Vote and do it the Australian way. Mainly because it would actually allow third party candidates to have a chance at winning elections and people would be able to vote their conscience, not to mention they get to pick second or third choices as well. Plus, the votes should be proportional.



And you convinced me. Australia FTW.


----------



## Arse Biscuit (May 8, 2017)

It's fine the way it is.


----------



## Fork Cartel (May 9, 2017)

any of these are better than fptp anyways, who really cares about the minutiae of getting it exactly right


----------



## Oh Long Johnson (May 10, 2017)

Any American STV proponent is a secret Green Party faggot, and this is the honeypot.


----------



## Un Platano (May 10, 2017)

What not enough people realize is that congress is most of the time more important than the president in the institution of policies. When people debate democracy they almost always focus solely on the election of the president an d no one else. That's ignoring two thirds of the relevant bodies. Congressional election turnouts are woefully low because people don't care about them- they don't regularly see their congressman on TV, the elections happen more often, and the campaigning is much smaller. As a result, people have a general disregard for the importance of them in the US government, and how they balance each other.

Big states have an advantage in the House
Small states have an advantage in the Executive
Both are equal in the Senate (which keeping in mind is generally the most powerful part of the US government)
It is a great way to keep both minority and majority interests from being thrown under the bus. A democracy is not an effective system if it will allow 60% of a voter base to entirely screw over the other 40% and justify it as democratic, and given the partisanship of modern America that would almost certainly happen if a direct democratic system were enacted.

There's also arguments that the electoral college is undemocratic because electors can choose against the will of the people, but that's an irrelevant argument because the only time faithless electors have and ever will have altered the results of a vote was in 1836.


----------



## Arse Biscuit (May 10, 2017)

I just love watching armchair political theorists nit-pick a system that has lasted 240+ years and left us on the very top of the world-wide shit heap.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## Star Wormwood (May 11, 2017)

Best reform would be having election day on Sunday instead of Tuesday tbh


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (May 12, 2017)

Eldritch said:


> Only property-owners and veterans should vote. Only those with something to lose should be allowed to play the game.


That's an oversimplification. People who don't own property still stand to lose by bad decisions, plus there's that whole paying taxes thing.

That said, I think there's a lot to be said for a system that requires people to earn their vote. I'm the weirdo among my friends because I'm the one who does not think starship troopers was too authoritarian. Like, I don't appreciate that some shithead who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and that obama's birth certificate is fake no matter what evidence there is, or that vaccines are a conspiracy because they've never even known anyone who had measles... I don't like the fact that person should get a vote that counts as much as mine. Every other form of power with reaching consequences that affect other lives, we say comes with responsibility, but not voting?


----------



## Ti-99/4A (May 14, 2017)

Alec Benson Leary said:


> I'm the one who does not think starship troopers was too authoritarian.


People who think it is overly authoritarian either didn't understand the book, or only saw the movie.


----------



## cuddle striker (May 14, 2017)

fuck electoral districts.

one person one vote, non taxpayers don't get one, and make it a transferable vote also.

edit: I think if you pay in, you get a say. fuck that "property owner" thing. if you pay taxes you get to vote. it's your money they're gonna spend, whether you own a plot or not.


----------



## AnOminous (May 14, 2017)

resonancer said:


> fuck electoral districts.



Gerrymandering is the problem, though, and it's rather difficult to solve.  Senators are elected by the entire state population, and if you elected House Reps that way, you'd get a homogenous bunch of exactly the same people out of all of California, and they have a ridiculous number of reps.  In a sense, that would deny regional populations any representation at all in the House.

Unless you went to some proportional representation system, which isn't going to happen without a constitutional amendment, it would actually break a lot of things.


----------



## cuddle striker (May 14, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> Gerrymandering is the problem, though, and it's rather difficult to solve.  Senators are elected by the entire state population, and if you elected House Reps that way, you'd get a homogenous bunch of exactly the same people out of all of California, and they have a ridiculous number of reps.  In a sense, that would deny regional populations any representation at all in the House.
> 
> Unless you went to some proportional representation system, which isn't going to happen without a constitutional amendment, it would actually break a lot of things.



yeah I kind of lean toward one person=one vote, absolutely, just because of this. I'd like to see proportional vote for all taxpayers, with a second option/runoff ballot.

it would break things to get to it, but those things likely need to be broken. on the state level, it'd be great if we had the Senate set up to represent population instead of state borders, and for the House, let it be very localized. that would give the House control to the less populated areas, balance the Senate, and make the presidential race a single vote per person, all counted equally. 

I think all the races should have runoff/second choice. I think Senate and Presidential elections should be restricted to taxpayers only. Let everyone who lives in an area vote for their local rep, though.


----------



## AnOminous (May 14, 2017)

The problem is all these alternate systems could just as easily be rigged and with the near impossibility of amending the Constitution easily (which is actually a good thing), it's not like you could dynamically react to this to fix these things in real time.


----------



## cuddle striker (May 14, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> The problem is all these alternate systems could just as easily be rigged and with the near impossibility of amending the Constitution easily (which is actually a good thing), it's not like you could dynamically react to this to fix these things in real time.


this is true, but I do think it would be a more fully representative system and less loaded with dumb fucks.


----------



## Feline Darkmage (May 14, 2017)

Relevant to our site.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (May 14, 2017)

sikotik said:


> People who think it is overly authoritarian either didn't understand the book, or only saw the movie.


_Thank you._


----------



## AnOminous (May 14, 2017)

sikotik said:


> People who think it is overly authoritarian either didn't understand the book, or only saw the movie.



I think it's overly authoritarian, actually, but not in the sense of being fascist, or in the sense of Michael Moorcock's bomb-throwing "Starship Stormtroopers" essay attacking it as virtually being Nazism.  For a more overtly authoritarian novel that actually could be fairly accused of approaching fascism, though, I'd recommend Farnham's Freehold.  It's a really fun book, though.

A lot of the absurdly polarized attitudes toward Heinlein go right back to the propeller beanie crowd in SF fandom going nuts on Usenet decades ago.  I wouldn't be surprised if Godwin's Law directly came out of those threads, because it used to be all you'd need to do to start a huge flamewar was crosspost something about Heinlein to 20 unrelated newsgroups, somehow insult Apple products in it, claim Star Wars is better than Star Trek, and dogs are better than cats.


----------



## TowinKarz (May 14, 2017)

IMHO, the system doesn't need fixed.

The cries that it's broken is just whining from people who lost after getting used to winning and putting in little to no effort this time around.


----------



## DuskEngine (May 15, 2017)

Alec Benson Leary said:


> That's an oversimplification. People who don't own property still stand to lose by bad decisions, plus there's that whole paying taxes thing.
> 
> That said, I think there's a lot to be said for a system that requires people to earn their vote. I'm the weirdo among my friends because I'm the one who does not think starship troopers was too authoritarian. Like, I don't appreciate that some shithead who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and that obama's birth certificate is fake no matter what evidence there is, or that vaccines are a conspiracy because they've never even known anyone who had measles... I don't like the fact that person should get a vote that counts as much as mine. Every other form of power with reaching consequences that affect other lives, we say comes with responsibility, but not voting?



you realise a congenitally wheelchair-bound person would also be a second-class citizen in a stratocracy though


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (May 15, 2017)

DuskEngine said:


> you realise a congenitally wheelchair-bound person would also be a second-class citizen in a stratocracy though


I fully admit the problem of judging who's fit to participate and who's not.

But shouldn't there be something? You have to take a written test to get a driver's license, because while you might think no one should impede on you driving, the fact is that you can't drive without impacting the other people around you. Why shouldn't you have to take a test to prove you understand the things you're voting on? Like, it could be simple questions: "this vote is for judicial seat 12 in your district. Please describe what the person who wins this vote will be responsible for." or something to that effect, to demonstrate you understand that "muslim" is not a type of fabric before you vote against it. (A more fitting comparison than the DMV might be that immigrants are required to take knowledge tests as part of legally entering the country. Why are voters not held to a similar standard?)

And yes, I am aware that "tests" were used to keep black people from voting in the Jim Crow era. I know a lot more thought would have to go into how to implement it. I just think "fuck it, give it to everyone and let the chips fall where they may" is not a good system. People don't use power constructively when they don't even appreciate having it.


----------



## AnOminous (May 15, 2017)

Alec Benson Leary said:


> I fully admit the problem of judging who's fit to participate and who's not.
> 
> But shouldn't there be something? You have to take a written test to get a driver's license, because while you might think no one should impede on you driving, the fact is that you can't drive without impacting the other people around you. Why shouldn't you have to take a test to prove you understand the things you're voting on? Like, it could be simple questions: "this vote is for judicial seat 12 in your district. Please describe what the person who wins this vote will be responsible for." or something to that effect, to demonstrate you understand that "muslim" is not a type of fabric before you vote against it. (A more fitting comparison than the DMV might be that immigrants are required to take knowledge tests as part of legally entering the country. Why are voters not held to a similar standard?)
> 
> And yes, I am aware that "tests" were used to keep black people from voting in the Jim Crow era. I know a lot more thought would have to go into how to implement it. I just think "fuck it, give it to everyone and let the chips fall where they may" is not a good system. People don't use power constructively when they don't even appreciate having it.



My own gay-ass test that also coincidentally would happen to favor me would be to give all voters a test when they vote on various basic facts of U.S. government.  Not partisan "facts" but objective facts from the Constitution, like "what are the three branches of the U.S. government" and shit like that.  No matter what your score, you'd still be permitted to vote, but if you literally knew jack-shit about the government, why should your vote carry much weight?  So your vote would be statistically weighed and accorded value according to what you actually know.

You wouldn't want to make this too ridiculous, to the point just getting a few answers wrong would completely fuck you, so maybe halve your vote if you're a standard deviation tarded, or double it if you're a standard deviation smarter, etc.  This would not only improve the results of voting, but incentivize actually knowing something about how the country is run.

Dipshit ideas like this could really fuck up everything, though.  

Imagine the massive rigging that would immediately take place whenever one of the scumbag parties got control of it.  Imagine the 4chan autists who would immediately hack any imaginable test, figure out how to score 18 standard deviations above the norm and make a meme President again.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Jun 13, 2017)

Alec Benson Leary said:


> That's an oversimplification. People who don't own property still stand to lose by bad decisions, plus there's that whole paying taxes thing.
> 
> That said, I think there's a lot to be said for a system that requires people to earn their vote. I'm the weirdo among my friends because I'm the one who does not think starship troopers was too authoritarian. Like, I don't appreciate that some shithead who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and that obama's birth certificate is fake no matter what evidence there is, or that vaccines are a conspiracy because they've never even known anyone who had measles... I don't like the fact that person should get a vote that counts as much as mine. Every other form of power with reaching consequences that affect other lives, we say comes with responsibility, but not voting?



Problem is who gets to decide who is and is not responsible enough?  Heinlein made a compelling point about veterans and public servants having an implicitly better understanding of civic responsibility.  I kind of agree with him but blanket statements like that are usually bad news.  Just because someone's been around blood and guts doesn't mean he's immune from being a short-sighted asshole.  And just because a guy spends his whole life sitting at a desk doesn't mean he's irresponsible and selfish.  Joe Haldeman's _Forever War_ paints a similar society.  But it isn't efficient or morally upright.  It's jingoistic and aggressive.  Heinlein's Federation isn't, it's based on Switzerland after all.  But Switzerland isn't the US or the world.

I admire the idea of public service.  A proper society should value it and reward it.  But I also believe people have a right to self-determination and the government saying "if you don't carry a gun and do what we tell you then you're just a dumb fucking normie with no business telling us how things should be" is a gross violation of the social contract.  That kind of thinking is medieval, plain and simple.


----------



## TowinKarz (Jun 13, 2017)

"Social Contract" is a good way of putting it.  

As long as you are being the proverbial "good citizen" then your end of the contract is kept and you cannot in good faith be denied your vote.  Which is why I really don't have a problem with the current "every adult gets a vote provided they are not a felon" system.  

Once you start from a position of "your vote must be earned through your good behavior" then you are always going to be at the mercy of whoever makes that call looking at you and telling you "sorry, not good enough".   

Armchair revolutionaries and social tinkerers never seem to get that human rights exist and governments can only take them away.  If you are lucky, you'll live in the fair and reasonable condition of having a government that only takes them if they've clearly been used to harm others.  Too many have it backwards and think the government gives those rights ( or should only give them to certain "worthy" groups) and that's the tiny crack that every despot and wannabe despot in the world, past present and future, will put their grimy claws and pull, justifying it with "these rabble haven't EARNED it" 

I can't get behind that line of thought.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 13, 2017)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> Problem is who gets to decide who is and is not responsible enough? Heinlein made a compelling point about veterans and public servants having an implicitly better understanding of civic responsibility. I kind of agree with him but blanket statements like that are usually bad news. Just because someone's been around blood and guts doesn't mean he's immune from being a short-sighted asshole.


Blanket statements are absolutely always bad news.

Heinlein tries to handwave it with a single line in the book where a teacher mentions that crime rates and degeneracy are no lower among veterans than among civilians. It seems a natural thing to expand that to a discussion of why veterans would vote better than civilians; he sort of dances around it by suggesting that entering military service is so discouraged that only those who want to do so to serve the public selflessly are left, but this is a very rosy view of the ability of enlightened sophists to casually rise above humanity's shortcomings (and you'll notice this pattern of dismissive condescension among protagonists quickly if you read any of his other novels). I always maintain that it's just the spirit of the concept I like - I fully admit I have no idea how it could be implemented successfully.

I should read the Forever War series. I've always heard good things and maybe it will expand my thinking a bit.



TowinKarz said:


> Once you start from a position of "your vote must be earned through your good behavior" then you are always going to be at the mercy of whoever makes that call looking at you and telling you "sorry, not good enough".
> 
> Armchair revolutionaries and social tinkerers never seem to get that human rights exist and governments can only take them away.


This is an excellent point. Just governments exist to earn the people's approval, only tyranny works the other way.

But the devil's advocacy must ask: which votes are really about _your_ rights? The example I always think of is gay marriage. I don't really believe marriage itself should be under the purview of the state, but the way it is as such there are legitimate financial, medical, and child custody benefits, and so long as some couples get it I think all couples should. If a person who doesn't like gays votes against a candidate or referendum because they would give marriage to the gays, what personal rights are they defending? Or are they just enforcing a spiteful class system in an ostensibly classless democracy, by denying rights to others?

Then again, it's not always about rights. You also vote based on how you want the direction of your country to go. And if someone wants to make an informed argument about why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed I'll listen. I just get annoyed when people think they can decide other people's rights without putting in a little effort and good faith. So of course a just government doesn't exist to take away rights... maybe some lazy voters need to be reminded of that. In a democracy, the people are supposed to _be_ that government, and arguably are violating the social contract by putting the boot on their fellow citizens' necks.

But then, mob rule is the (seemingly) unavoidable downside of democracy.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Jun 13, 2017)

The Forever War is a good contrast to Starship Troopers but told from the perspective of someone who doesn't take his government's word at face value.  This is why I don't like applying Starship Troopers to my political philosophies.  The ideas are interesting but Juan Rico is a tool of the state. I can't trust him as a narrator because he rarely internalizes anything  and when he does he always winds up agreeing with his superiors.  It's really easy to present a glitzy interpretation of your politics when the characters rarely ever challenge what they're told (and when they do they get immediately shut down by one of the millions of Steve Rogers expies running this planet).


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Jun 13, 2017)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> That kind of thinking is medieval, plain and simple.



Some medieval thought was demonstrably good. The idea that the rich owed something back to the poor who propped them up, however hard it may or may not have sometimes failed in practice, was an idea that modern society should not have sacrificed. The idea that you can never completely eliminate the wealth gap and that classes should cooperate rather than oppose one another, was another good one. Or that people, no matter how educated, will never be robotic creatures of pure rationalism. Modern democracy would stand to learn something.



Alec Benson Leary said:


> Then again, it's not always about rights. You also vote based on how you want the direction of your country to go. And if someone wants to make an informed argument about why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed I'll listen.



I oppose gay marriage as an institution because I think granting it further legitimizes the institution of state marriage, which I hate, and which should confer no benefits to anyone. It infringes on the rights of religion, on gay people, on just about everyone, by having the government define what was always a purely religious or social concept. At least, a secular state should have no state marriage. The solution was to abolish marriage privileges for the straights, not to extend those insane incentives to the gays, who will not provide any of the expected results of those benefits anyway in most cases. Just like heterosexuals don't anymore. Secular, state, marriage is an obviously archaic and foolish institution.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 13, 2017)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> The Forever War is a good contrast to Starship Troopers but told from the perspective of someone who doesn't take his government's word at face value.  This is why I don't like applying Starship Troopers to my political philosophies.  The ideas are interesting but Juan Rico is a tool of the state. I can't trust him as a narrator because he rarely internalizes anything  and when he does he always winds up agreeing with his superiors.  It's really easy to present a glitzy interpretation of your politics when the characters rarely ever challenge what they're told (and when they do they get immediately shut down by one of the millions of Steve Rogers expies running this planet).


Heinlein was kind of an immature writer because literally every character who had the "correct" beliefs didn't hold them for good reasons, they just became author mouthpieces and constantly blew each other while dismissing any valid criticism. He was kind of a fanfiction writer before the internet. 



Gym Leader Elesa said:


> I oppose gay marriage as an institution because I think granting it further legitimizes the institution of state marriage, which I hate, and which should confer no benefits to anyone. It infringes on the rights of religion, on gay people, on just about everyone, by having the government define what was always a purely religious or social concept.


This is a great position. I obviously choose to take it the other way in the end, but I'd rather have someone like you vote against me based on reasoning than someone vote with me because they support their liberal team colors.

It's a lot more valuable to be told no by someone who thinks than to be supported by someone who doesn't.


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 13, 2017)

TowinKarz said:


> Armchair revolutionaries and social tinkerers never seem to get that human rights exist and governments can only take them away.



Governments can't actually take rights away.  They can only violate them.  Some rights are fundamental to what it means to be human, i.e. a sapient entity capable of reasoning and self-determination.

This isn't quite objective reality in the sense gravity is, but with a fairly minimal assumptions the general idea of human rights can be derived, whether that's something like the libertarian non-aggression principle, an idea of "God-given" natural rights, or some other principles like self-determination, right to bodily integrity, etc.

At least Western democracies generally have some safeguards, differing in type and degree, attempting to prevent the worst abuses by government, in the knowledge that governments without such limitations invariably turn bad.

Unlike the general idea of rights, this can be measured somewhat objectively in terms like standard of living, quality of life, lifespan, gross national product, etc. and so-called "Western-style" or "liberal democracies" consistently average much higher standards of living and other measures of societal success.  While countries like China have shown it is possible to have some degree of economic success and somewhat free economies while ranking very low in their general respect of human rights, I'd still stack up any Western democracy against China as a place I'd willingly live.


----------



## Alec Benson Leary (Jun 13, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> While countries like China have shown it is possible to have some degree of economic success and somewhat free economies while ranking very low in their general respect of human rights,


I feel like this is a heavy consequence of intent. The US formed with freedom as its raison d'etre (arguments about a history of poor execution notwithstanding). China is "modern" but only because they felt a need to play catch-up so they could compete economically.


----------



## TowinKarz (Jun 13, 2017)

Good point, I should have said "repress" instead of "take".

And for all the flaws, once established, direct democracy seems to at least provide nominal levels of stability, peace, cultural flourish and economic prosperity,  Europe is far more stable now than a mere 250-300 years ago.  For all the bellyaching and fist-shaking at Brussels and Berlin, the major powers are not going to march armies on one another.   You used to be able to set your watch by when the troops marched through the low countries....

 For all the junior communists pointing out wealth-gaps this and imperialist-economic-that, North America hasn't seen arms drawn in anger on it's soil in 150 some years....  Yes, not everyone can afford a Ferrari, big deal.  You can have a roof over your head, electricity, running water, reliable sewage, internet, a car, maybe two, and STILL be considered poor around here,  and the only way you're going to starve to death is if you WORK at it by doing it somewhere where no one sees you collapse or else you'll wake up in a hospital bed (yes, with a bill, but that's besides the point)

That says something about progress, however cynical you wish to be.    And look at what the desire to have shiny toys has done, countries like China have had to take the shackles off, if only by degrees, because as you said, they had to fit into the modern capitalist trade and banking system somewhere.... 

The moralists can cry all they wish about capitalist democracies turning everyone into fat consumerist pigs, but you know what? Fat pigs are too unfit to go to war and wouldn't want to anyway since their stuff might get broken.   Isn't there just a little upside in that?


----------



## Zeorus (Jun 14, 2017)

The idea of people earning their votes actually isn't unheard of in left-wing circles, either - I've heard a lot of talk like that among (non-lolcow) anarchists and libertarian socialists. It's often attached to the idea that he who does not work does not eat. Likewise, he who does not contribute to the society in question (however big or small) doesn't get as much of a say (if any at all) in the collective decision-making processes. Couple this with the motivation to find work for everyone to do in an anarchist/libertarian socialist/confederalist society, and the only people who suffer (in theory, but to a certain extent in practice) are the truly slothful.

Setting aside the pipedream of anarchism, I'm an STV guy myself. Ultimately, I think a multi-party system in which the members of the voting public can vote according to the dictates of their conscience rather than voting strategically (or worst of all, voting against someone instead of for someone) is the best way to ensure that the people get what they want and are exposed to a wide enough variety of political ideas to be informed voters.


----------



## SpectateSwamp (Jun 14, 2017)

The problem with elections is the Candidates.
A disproportional percent are Chamber of Commerce members. 
They would off-shore and out-source everything for a buck.

We have to work hard to get non CofC candidates elected.  That will solve everything.


----------



## Jeremy Corbyn (Jun 16, 2017)

STV. Take a look at the UK's  2015 election to see why.

Purple got 12.6% of the vote, got 1 seat.

Yellow got 4.7% of the vote, got 56 seats.


----------

