My recent article on the dominance ruling-rich says something about what I mean when I say that the country has much bigger problems than can be solved by voting methods. Voting-systems like approval voting are a bandage on a decapitation. In the time of Trump, this isn’t just a political subject (something that I’ve completely abandoned). It’s now just a matter of what’s about to happen to us.
The ruling-structure, and its underlying causes, is the cause of the other societal problems. Of course that isn’t something new, or limited to any one country. Rule by people who don’t mind harming others in order to satisfy their greed and/or power or love of violence is nothing new. That’s just the way it’s always been. Over the millennia, it’s had all sorts of forms, excuses, and “justifications”. I guess first it was divine right, and then “We’re just better”. And then now the modern forms and new pretenses that we hear continually repeated at us every day in the “news”. New details, same thing, no genuine difference.
I wrote a series of articles at Democracy Chronicles about “What can we do right now?“. I spoke of pro-democracy demonstrations demanding verified vote-counting, and demonstrations at NPR FM stations, to make it clear that we’ll withhold contributions unless they drop NPR and replace it with genuinely independent locally-written news and programming…, followed by then actually refusing to contribute to NPR stations.
Those suggestions were all I could suggest. For them to have any chance of accomplishing anything, of course most people would have to agree and participate. Regrettably, that isn’t something that I’d bet on, and even if they did, there’s no guarantee that it (or anything) would even work.
There’s a widespread assumption that if we just tried a little harder or better, everything would improve, and that it’s soon going to happen. I guess it’s human-nature to want to believe that.
It isn’t the way it is just by accident. I now think that any suggestion, effort or expectation for societal improvement is up against the results of millions of years of evolution, in which the long-established deplorable socio-psychological rule-arrangement evolved mutually, because evidently there was a time in our prehistory when it was adaptive.
Well, speaking more generally, the animal-kingdom has always been full of violence and misfortune (misfortune mostly caused by violence, hunger and disease). In fact, spiritual teachers say that birth is a calamity. But we’re here, and it isn’t as if we now have a choice – we can only do our best, for our own lives, for ourselves and those closest to us and not expect anything better beyond that scope.
But I hasten to add that, just because we can’t expect any societal improvement, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have a need/responsibility to live ethically, honestly and kindly. Right-living, Dharmic living, is called for in many traditions.
Just because we live in a world run by lost souls who on-goingly further debase themselves by their conduct, doesn’t mean that we can’t or needn’t do better in our own lives. Feel sorry for them, because, when it really comes down to it, they harm themselves worst, and they’re their own main victims.
In regard to the title, “New Voting Systems Can’t Solve the Problems of Democracy”, well, we can’t know the problems of democracy until we’ve tried some democracy, can we? Perhaps new voting systems can solve the problems of _lack of_ democracy.
William Waugh wrote:
[quote]
In regard to the title, “New Voting Systems Can’t Solve the Problems of Democracy”, well, we can’t know the problems of democracy until we’ve tried some democracy, can we?
[unquote]
And you think that we can try some democracy. …just because it finally occurs to us to say, “Hey, why don’t we try some democracy!”?
If you want to try, then I don’t want to seem to be trying to discourage you. But doesn’t it occur to you that we _have been_ trying for democracy for some time…and, for some reason, not getting it?
Sure, try, and I hope you succeed, But don’t count on it.
[quote]
Perhaps new voting systems can solve the problems of _lack of_ democracy?
[/quote]
Perhaps a band-aid can cure a decapitation, but I doubt it.
Consider this, if you will:
If we don’t have democracy, then how do you propose to get a better voting-system?
For one thing, why should a better voting-system be allowed, unless the people who own the lawmakers want to cede government to the public?
For another thing, without verifiable vote-counting, it wouldn’t make the slightest difference what voting-system is used.
Even with the best voting-system (whichever one you think that is), Hillary would have “beaten” Bernie, because the real voting-power belongs to him who counts the votes.
But, as I said, work for improvement if you want to. Just don’ count on success.
Michael Ossipoff
I’d like to add a few comments to my reply:
[quote]
In regard to the title, “New Voting Systems Can’t Solve the Problems of Democracy”, well, we can’t know the problems of democracy until we’ve tried some democracy,
[unquote]
And what makes you think that we’ll have the opportunity to try some democracy?
Try some democracy? Dream on.
Yes, we’re unlikely to have a chance to know the problems of democracy, because we won’t have a chance to try it.
[quote]
can we? Perhaps new voting systems can solve the problems of _lack of_ democracy.
[unquot]
How could you believe that? You’re admitting that there now isn’t democracy. Voting-systems are used in a democracy. Any meaningful use of a voting-system pre-supposes a democracy.
Without democracy, you needn’t worry about what the voting-system should be. It would be like shopping for a ignition-coil when you don’t even have a car.
1. Count-Fraud:
Maybe you’ll say that it can’t be proven that the vote-counting isn’t honest.
a). In principle, of course that can’t be proved, when no one gets an opportunity to do an honest count. Partly for that reason, it isn’t necessary to prove count-fraud. The mere fact that we’re not allowed a verifiable vote-count is enough to automatically make the count, and the election, illegitimate..
b). In both of G.W. Bush’s elections, there were mountains of blatant evidence of count-fraud on a large scale. If the powers-that-be would stoop to that once, do you think they’re above it now?
2. Upholding the Constitution. Oath of Office:
How many Constitutional violations does it take for Congress to admit that there’s been one?
Presidents take an oath of office, to “uphold the Constitution. Have you noticed that oath being honored? Don’t congressmemebers take an oath to uphold the Constitution. I don’t know. Maybe it isn’t felt important that they do.
But how much democracy do you think there is, when President and Congress ignore, and couldn’t care less about, the Constititution?
…something that can be fixed with a better voting-system? :^)
As I said, the voting-system is as irrelevant as voting itself is.
3. Campaign Promises:
What if a candidate promised that, after being elected, He would do something, or to not do something….and then, upon election, acted oppositely to his promise?
It isn’t just Republicans. Democrats do it too. We had a Congress candidate who promised to fight NAFTA if elected. When he got to Washington, he voted for NAFTA.
Clinton got elected promising a middle-class tax-cut. In a speech or press-conference he said that the middle-class tax-cut wouldn’t be possible after all. He was smiling while saying it, laughing at his suckers who trusted him.
Well, didn’t P..T. Barnum say that there’s a sucker born every minute?
And didn’t W.C. Fields say, “Never give a sucker an even break.”?
Those two great social-scientists have the explanation for how societal matters are, and will always be.
Oh, and don’t forget to vote ::^) :^) :^)
:^)
j don’t want to seem to be trying to discourage your work,.
…but I’d be a liar if I encouraged it.
Michael Ossipoff