A Failure of Democracy

[Immanuel Can]

b) Israel has a heck of a lot more parties than 8.

Possibly so. I haven't looked recently. But it doesn't matter, because you get the point: more parties, less chance of a pure majority. It's that simple.

[MikeNovack]

b) Israel has a heck of a lot more parties than 8.

Possibly so. I haven't looked recently. But it doesn't matter, because you get the point: more parties, less chance of a pure majority. It's that simple.

You do not expect "proportional representation" to result in a majority government. You expect all governments formed will be coalitions . That means more people get their primary wishes implemented. More democratic but also more chaotic. Works best when there are not regional difference.

It's a feature, not a bug.

[Gary Childress]

Well, Biden's legendary disaster in Iraq was not so much a "getting out" as a complete collapse of order, of course. Nobody holds up his exit as if it was good policy: even his supporters were humiliated by that mess. But yes for Obama...he did stop Iraq. But he also wiped out a wedding with bombs, as I recall, and approved the assassination of one of America's enemies in the Middle East.

You're projecting, Gary. I don't hate anybody. I just ask questions. That's philosophy.

Funny how those "philosophical questions" always seem to skew you against "socialists" and favor political monsters over moderates. Your agenda is crystal clear. You wear it on your sleeve. If something has to do with justice for those wronged, then you're against it.

You're getting all personal and nasty and angry, Gary. And you've stopped thinking. That's unfortunate.

I'm always polite to you. I don't think I've ever called you anything, in fact. But then, maybe I'm much more sure of the truth of my position than you apparently are. There's no need to become nasty. Degenerating into insults is a sure sign of having lost any ability to reason, or any track of the real conversation.

Those who can't win, insult.

Fair enough. You win. Socialists are evil manipulators and there's no reason to believe that Trump is anything but an angel by comparison. The super rich can earn their exorbitant wealth and if they do, they deserve it. You've maintained calmly and conclusively that that is the case. So it must be true.

[Immanuel Can]

b) Israel has a heck of a lot more parties than 8.

Possibly so. I haven't looked recently. But it doesn't matter, because you get the point: more parties, less chance of a pure majority. It's that simple.

You do not expect "proportional representation" to result in a majority government. You expect all governments formed will be coalitions . That means more people get their primary wishes implemented.

No, it means that more people don't get their candidate and his platform elected, and have to settle for second best or third best or fourth best...or even for coalitions with parties they don't really like. And nobody achieves what they really want.

That's a bug alright; and democracy is buggy. But it's still better than the alternatives.

[Immanuel Can]

Funny how those "philosophical questions" always seem to skew you against "socialists" and favor political monsters over moderates. Your agenda is crystal clear. You wear it on your sleeve. If something has to do with justice for those wronged, then you're against it.

You're getting all personal and nasty and angry, Gary. And you've stopped thinking. That's unfortunate.

I'm always polite to you. I don't think I've ever called you anything, in fact. But then, maybe I'm much more sure of the truth of my position than you apparently are. There's no need to become nasty. Degenerating into insults is a sure sign of having lost any ability to reason, or any track of the real conversation.

Those who can't win, insult.

Fair enough. You win. Socialists are evil manipulators and there's no reason to believe that Trump is anything but an angel by comparison. The super rich can earn their exorbitant wealth and if they do, they deserve it. You've maintained calmly and conclusively that that is the case. So it must be true.

Hmmm...now you're just making stuff up.

[MikeNovack]

No, it means that more people don't get their candidate and his platform elected, and have to settle for second best or third best or fourth best...or even for coalitions with parties they don't really like. And nobody achieves what they really want.

That's a bug alright; and democracy is buggy. But it's still better than the alternatives.

You are confusing "how are members of parliament elected" with "general issues of the parliamentary form of government" (that depend on how the individual preferences, the ultimate voters, divide on issues"

What you are objecting to not NECESSARILY true for a coalition government. We would need to discuss things like what makes good (vs bad) coalition partners, when are minority governments stable, etc. The devil is in the details and the details depend on ultimate voter preferences (depend on the society).

But for the time being, please note that alternatives to "proportional representation" also have problems. For example, when MPs elected "by riding" there is no assurance that a minority of the voters could not elect a majority of MPs (just like in the US, a Presidential candidate could win a majority of electoral votes vet lose the popular vote and this has happened several times) Proportional representation does not have THIS problem.

[Immanuel Can]

No, it means that more people don't get their candidate and his platform elected, and have to settle for second best or third best or fourth best...or even for coalitions with parties they don't really like. And nobody achieves what they really want.

That's a bug alright; and democracy is buggy. But it's still better than the alternatives.

You are confusing "how are members of parliament elected" with "general issues of the parliamentary form of government" (that depend on how the individual preferences, the ultimate voters, divide on issues"

I have no such confusion. It's your own.

I'm speaking only of what constitutes a genuinely majoritarian democratic outcome.

What you are objecting to not NECESSARILY true for a coalition government.

Actually, it is. A coalition, by defnition, is a fusion of the party one may have actually voted for with other parties one did not vote for.

[MikeNovack]

What you are objecting to not NECESSARILY true for a coalition government.

Actually, it is. A coalition, by definition, is a fusion of the party one may have actually voted for with other parties one did not vote for.

Whether true depends on whether what I "good" coalition partners or "bad" coalition partners.

If two parties have DISJOINT agendas/platforms) they are ideal coalition partners since no compromise needed. They can support a joint platform including all of their demands. This is presumably also going to be true for the ultimate voter. If I very badly want A, B, C, and D (and so vote for a party with that platform) and you want W, X, Y, and Z (and so vote for a party with that platform) neither of us has a problem with a coalition proposing A, B, C, D, W, X, Y, Z << remember, these were DISJOINT wants, no conflict between any of these >>

On the other hand, if the necessary coalition partners have agendas/platforms with planks in conflict, there would have to be compromise and what you say would apply. Now typically planks not of equal importance, so this coalition might still work if he important planks of both are not in conflict.

Parties with top priority planks in conflict will not enter into a coalition together.

Understand? This is all about what the preferences of the ultimate voters happen to be.

LOOK --- We could also discuss under what circumstances a minority government will be stable. Again, going to depend on the preferences of the ultimate voters, whether the parties in opposition would be able to co-operate to bring down the minority government.

[Gary Childress]

You're getting all personal and nasty and angry, Gary. And you've stopped thinking. That's unfortunate.

I'm always polite to you. I don't think I've ever called you anything, in fact. But then, maybe I'm much more sure of the truth of my position than you apparently are. There's no need to become nasty. Degenerating into insults is a sure sign of having lost any ability to reason, or any track of the real conversation.

Those who can't win, insult.

Fair enough. You win. Socialists are evil manipulators and there's no reason to believe that Trump is anything but an angel by comparison. The super rich can earn their exorbitant wealth and if they do, they deserve it. You've maintained calmly and conclusively that that is the case. So it must be true.

Hmmm...now you're just making stuff up.

I see. So socialists are not evil manipulators. Trump isn't better than socialists. And the super rich cannot earn their exorbitant wealth. All that seems to contradict what you have said to me. Am I understanding you incorrectly?

[Immanuel Can]

Fair enough. You win. Socialists are evil manipulators and there's no reason to believe that Trump is anything but an angel by comparison. The super rich can earn their exorbitant wealth and if they do, they deserve it. You've maintained calmly and conclusively that that is the case. So it must be true.

Hmmm...now you're just making stuff up.

I see.

I don't think you do, Gary. If you can't quote it, I didn't say it. And if it's not either a quotation or an inescapable logical corollary required by one such, then it's stuff you made up.

I don't answer to stuff you make up.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, it is. A coalition, by definition, is a fusion of the party one may have actually voted for with other parties one did not vote for.

Whether true depends on whether what I "good" coalition partners or "bad" coalition partners.

No, actually. Even if you think they're "good," they're not the people for whom you voted. So it doesn't solve the "majority" problem.

Sheesh. This is so obvious.

[phyllo]

No, actually. Even if you think they're "good," they're not the people for whom you voted. So it doesn't solve the "majority" problem.

Nothing solves the "majority problem" except a unanimous vote.

Because there will always be a minority which did not vote for the majority winner.

Sheesh. This is so obvious.

[Impenitent]

failure of democracy...

who gets to vote is another question entirely

he/she/it can't vote- they haven't come of age...

just kill it; it isn't a person anyway

-Imp

[phyllo]

AI will predict how a fetus would vote and the vote will be counted.

Legal voting age to become minus 9 months.

[Immanuel Can]

No, actually. Even if you think they're "good," they're not the people for whom you voted. So it doesn't solve the "majority" problem.

Nothing solves the "majority problem" except a unanimous vote.

No, 51% is, by definition, a majority.