A Failure of Democracy

[phyllo]

You made quite a soup of this by mixing talk of votes for individuals in a riding to get a winner and the formation of a majority/minority government from the riding results.

It's easy to get a majority winner in a riding by using ranked ballots or a second runoff vote.

And yes, some segment of the voters will not be happy because their "guy" didn't win.


In the case of forming a government ... majority, minority governments and coalitions reflect the will of the voters. Minority governments and coalitions mean that the voters differ on the issues and the various parties need to work together to reach an acceptable compromise.

And yes, some segment of the voters will not be happy because their party is not in control of the government.

[MikeNovack]

You made quite a soup of this by mixing talk of votes for individuals in a riding to get a winner and the formation of a majority/minority government from the riding results.

It's easy to get a majority winner in a riding by using ranked ballots or a second runoff vote.

Not understanding what I am talking about so I will give a concrete example. For the moment, not relevant HOW the election in a riding is decided (first past the post, ranked choice, etc.)

EXAMPLE: Suppose there are 100 seats in the parliament (100 "ridings" to use the UK term) and suppose there are just two parties contesting, A and B. In sixty of the ridings, the candidate of party A beats the candidate of party B 55% to 45%. In forty of the ridings, the candidate of party B beats the candidate of party A 70% to 30%
Then:
1) Party A forms the government with a very healthy 60-40 seat majority. In spite of the fact.......
2) Party A had 45% of the vote (60 x .55) + (40 x .30)
3) Party B had 55% of the vote (60 x .45) + (40 x .70)

[Gary Childress]

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.

OK. So are you saying socialists are or are not evil manipulators? Are you saying Trump is better, worse or the same as socialists? Are you saying the super rich can or cannot earn their exorbitant wealth? Which is it. You've made statements approximately to those effects. You sound like you are backtracking or avoiding the question to me.

They're simple questions. You can answer "true" or "false" to whether socialists are evil manipulators. You can answer "better, worse or the same as" for Trump vs socialists and you can answer "true" or "false" to the super rich being able to earn their wealth. These are statements that can be given a truth value. Or do you not believe in logic?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

OK. So are you saying socialists are or are not evil manipulators?

I'm asking you what you do with the Fabian problem. There are certainly manipulators who use Socialism to achieve their ends...there can be no doubting that, because we've seen it in every Socialist regime in history; and in the case of the Fabian Society, they even tell you exactly what they are doing.

And this is the key reason why Socialism will never work. It's based on a false anthropology, a delusional view of human nature that does not take into account the fallen nature of man, and must assume constant goodness where evil often dwells.

[Gary Childress]

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.

OK. So are you saying socialists are or are not evil manipulators?

I'm asking you what you do with the Fabian problem. There are certainly manipulators who use Socialism to achieve their ends...there can be no doubting that, because we've seen it in every Socialist regime in history; and in the case of the Fabian Society, they even tell you exactly what they are doing.

And this is the key reason why Socialism will never work. It's based on a false anthropology, a delusional view of human nature that does not take into account the fallen nature of man, and must assume constant goodness where evil often dwells.

What about socialists who don't use socialism to manipulate? Are all socialists wealthy manipulators? Or is socialism like any other system that can be corrupted by corrupt people or used by good people to do good things?

[phyllo]

You made quite a soup of this by mixing talk of votes for individuals in a riding to get a winner and the formation of a majority/minority government from the riding results.

It's easy to get a majority winner in a riding by using ranked ballots or a second runoff vote.

Not understanding what I am talking about so I will give a concrete example. For the moment, not relevant HOW the election in a riding is decided (first past the post, ranked choice, etc.)

EXAMPLE: Suppose there are 100 seats in the parliament (100 "ridings" to use the UK term) and suppose there are just two parties contesting, A and B. In sixty of the ridings, the candidate of party A beats the candidate of party B 55% to 45%. In forty of the ridings, the candidate of party B beats the candidate of party A 70% to 30%
Then:
1) Party A forms the government with a very healthy 60-40 seat majority. In spite of the fact.......
2) Party A had 45% of the vote (60 x .55) + (40 x .30)
3) Party B had 55% of the vote (60 x .45) + (40 x .70)

Yes. You are again mixing together majority for a candidate and majority for government.

The questions are ...
Why do you have ridings?

What are you attempting to achieve with the vote?

[MikeNovack]

Yes. You are again mixing together majority for a candidate and majority for government.

The questions are ...
Why do you have ridings?

Taken out of order
Why do you have ridings?

Do you mean instead of electing all MPs "at large? THAT is what is being done with a system like "proportional representation". You seem to be wanting "ranked choice voting" but that is suited to selecting ONE candidate, not hundreds at the same time. Besides allowing form representation of local interests, "ridings" are a solution to electing hundreds of candidates at the same time (an entire parliament)

You are again mixing together majority for a candidate and majority for government.

Not really. Consider how the election for president is conducted in the US. There are "states". The election is held in each state (to determine a single winner) with the state deciding how its electoral votes get cast. All but a few choose "winner take all", the candidate who wins in the state gets ALL of the states electoral votes. But say in Maine, the winning candidate in each Congressional district gets the electoral vote for that district with the two remaining electoral votes going to the candidate who won overall in the state. You might note that the whole system favors the smaller (by population) states. So my vote for President (I live in Massachusetts) is worth less than the vote of a friend living 10 miles away in Vermont. This not as crazy a compromise as it might seem when you remember the original situation under the Articles of Confederation was one STATE one electoral vote. We are a federation of states (and commonwealths).

So ----- several times in our history one candidate won the election (majority of electoral votes) even though lost the popular vote (more people voted for an opponent). And yes, repeated calls to change to election "at large" (popular vote only) and also calls for more states to d something like Maine does. That would make more of a difference in a big (large population) state with lots of Congressional districts. Will never happen as "winner take all" increases the power/influence of a state in the campaign for President.

So where you were seeing me mixing up "for a candidate" and "for a government" just think of it as the election of a Prime Minister.

BTW --I would be perfectly happy to see a discussion of "ranked choice voting'. It's not QUITE as advertised, has its own flaws, rarely discussed or what could be done to remedy them. Mind some proponents, although knowing about but not mentioning these flaws, consider them not bugs but features (ulterior motives). I'm generally in favor of ranked choice voting as an improvement over "plurality elections' but think its problems should be addressed with suitable modification.

[Immanuel Can]

OK. So are you saying socialists are or are not evil manipulators?

I'm asking you what you do with the Fabian problem. There are certainly manipulators who use Socialism to achieve their ends...there can be no doubting that, because we've seen it in every Socialist regime in history; and in the case of the Fabian Society, they even tell you exactly what they are doing.

And this is the key reason why Socialism will never work. It's based on a false anthropology, a delusional view of human nature that does not take into account the fallen nature of man, and must assume constant goodness where evil often dwells.

What about socialists who don't use socialism to manipulate?

Lenin had a name for them.

He called them "useful idiots."

[phyllo]

Do you mean instead of electing all MPs "at large? THAT is what is being done with a system like "proportional representation". You seem to be wanting "ranked choice voting" but that is suited to selecting ONE candidate, not hundreds at the same time. Besides allowing form representation of local interests, "ridings" are a solution to electing hundreds of candidates at the same time (an entire parliament)

I don't want anything in these last couple of posts except some better focus.

It's easy to set up a system which produces a majority vote in an electoral district/ riding. But that that doesn't necessarily produces a majority result in government. But that is not a "failure" of democracy.

It's also possible to set up a system which produces a majority government by voting for a party rather than an individual candidate and forcing runoffs until a party gets a majority. (Then assigning representatives according to how the final vote split.)

There are many ways of doing these things and the one that is chosen depends on what you want to achieve by having a democracy.

Democracy fails if it does not deliver the chosen goals.

One way that it fails now, is that politicians make campaign promises which they do not keep, once they are elected. (If one goal is to do what the voters want you to do. But that might not be a goal.)

[Gary Childress]

I'm asking you what you do with the Fabian problem. There are certainly manipulators who use Socialism to achieve their ends...there can be no doubting that, because we've seen it in every Socialist regime in history; and in the case of the Fabian Society, they even tell you exactly what they are doing.

And this is the key reason why Socialism will never work. It's based on a false anthropology, a delusional view of human nature that does not take into account the fallen nature of man, and must assume constant goodness where evil often dwells.

What about socialists who don't use socialism to manipulate?

Lenin had a name for them.

He called them "useful idiots."

Never mind what Lenin may or may not have thought. (The "useful idiot" slogan has not turned up in any of Lenin's known writings, FYI).

What should a good socialist be called? Any suggestions? How about just a "good socialist" if there are no other ideas?

[Immanuel Can]

What about socialists who don't use socialism to manipulate?

Lenin had a name for them.

He called them "useful idiots."

Never mind what Lenin may or may not have thought.

Well, Lenin was a Socialist. And like him, the Fabians are the users of Socialists. And there's no doubt the aphorism is apt, in that such men use the naive, trusting Socialists for any purpose they wish, and discard them without the slightest hesitation. That's the whole history of Socialism since Marx...if not before as well.

In Socialism, you get to pick your role: you get to be a wolf, or one of the sheep the wolves eat. Those are your choices.

[MikeNovack]

I don't know if any of you are familiar with the work of Kenneth Arrow.

As applied to "democracy", the theorem means that there will be no perfect system. All would have good points and flaws, with these dependent on how good a fit for the divisions of preferences in the society << essentially means no matter how good a method in general, there will be some possible division of preferences for which it works badly, even very badly>>

That suggests when we look at systems (say "ranked choice voting") we need to understand both virtues and flaws, when the divisions of preferences in the society make it a good method and when the divisions of preferences in the society highlight its flaws. Continuing with this example, I will suggest the reason we are hearing this system praised is because it is well suited to the division of preferences we have right now. Strong middle, the highly divergent preferences relatively weak and to the outside (by strong vs weak I mean lots of support/voters). Under this division of preferences "ranked choice voting" WILL deliver as promised, result in winners with majority reference over the other candidates and do away with the need for "strategic voting".

But that division of preferences could be different, could change over time. So we should also look at what division of preferences would "ranked choice voting" preform poorly. Eliminate a candidate even though this candidate has MAJORITY preference over all other candidates. Bring back "strategic voting" and under the worst possible conditions. Have results of consecutive elections move in the opposite direction of a shift in societal preferences << I think you all would agree THAT last simply unacceptable, would have people out in the streets >> For the moment, simply accept all these potential problems, though I could give numerical examples . After all, not certain we want to tackle "ranked choice voting first", though a good reason to do so is the "ranked choice ballot" can be used for other methods besides ranked choice vote counting (Condorcet or Borda)

IN ADDITION TO discussing flaws we might also see if we could suggest modifications that would address them. Oh, and BTW, there are some proponents of "ranked choice voting" who know about the issues (most don';t) but consider them a feature, not a bug. Ulterior motives involved. They WANT people out in the streets.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know if any of you are familiar with the work of Kenneth Arrow.

As applied to "democracy", the theorem means that there will be no perfect system. All would have good points and flaws, with these dependent on how good a fit for the divisions of preferences in the society << essentially means no matter how good a method in general, there will be some possible division of preferences for which it works badly, even very badly>>

Yep. Just as I said, "Democracy is the worst system of government, except for every other system of government." I'm not the first to realize it, and I won't be the last.

Under this division of preferences "ranked choice voting" WILL deliver as promised, result in winners with majority reference over the other candidates and do away with the need for "strategic voting".

Here's the problem, Mike. And it's the same problem as Socialism has, though Socialism has it in a much more toxic form. It can't do away with the need to accommodate the fallibility of human nature. Whatever system we invent, there will be "wolves" who will subvert and exploit it, candidates who lie about what they will do with power, impulsive and uneducated sets of voters who will use it badly and vote for fools and wicked men, corrupt officials who will bilk the system, and totalitarian despots who will aim to rule by it.

The best political system is simply the one with the most stringent controls on those problems of human fallibility...i.e. the one with the best "checks and balances" so that these things are minimized. They will never be completely eliminated. And pretending they don't exist, as Socialists do, will be the worst of all possible "solutions" to the problem.

[Gary Childress]

In Socialism, you get to pick your role: you get to be a wolf, or one of the sheep the wolves eat. Those are your choices.

The same seems to apply in non-socialist countries as well. Though, I would say the European democracies with more extensive social programs are probably a little better than the US in some ways. Or at the very least, no worse.

[Immanuel Can]

In Socialism, you get to pick your role: you get to be a wolf, or one of the sheep the wolves eat. Those are your choices.

The same seems to apply in non-socialist countries as well.

Not at all, actually. You live in the most free and privileged situation that's existed in history. By contrast, every Socialist regime has been a hellhole of human rights abuses, totalitarianism and robbery.

Be thankful. You've got it good.