• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Democracy Chronicles

Towards better democracy everywhere.

  • AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
  • WORLD DEMOCRACY
  • POLITICAL ART
  • more
    • election technology
    • money politics
    • political dissidents
    • THIRD PARTY
      • third party central
      • green party
      • justice party
      • libertarian party
    • voting methods
  • DC INFO
    • author central
    • about
    • advertise with DC
    • contact
    • privacy policy
You are here: Home / DC Authors / Voting Systems Don’t Matter if You Don’t Have a Real Democracy

Voting Systems Don’t Matter if You Don’t Have a Real Democracy

February 2, 2018 by Michael Ossipoff 2 Comments

FacebookLinkedInPinTweet

You Don't Have a Real Democracy

There was an interesting comment on my recent article, “New Voting Systems Can’t Solve the Problems of Democracy” by someone named William Waugh that got me thinking and I decided to write this reply. William said:

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.

So I would like to answer William’s comment in this article. Yes, we’re unlikely to have a chance to know the problems of democracy, because we won’t have a chance to try it. Doesn’t it occur to you that we have been trying for democracy for some time and, for some reason, we’re not getting it?

If you want to try, then I don’t want to seem to be trying to discourage you. Sure, try, and I hope you succeed, But don’t count on it. William was sharing a common refrain when he said: “Perhaps new voting systems can solve the problems of lack of democracy?” But I would say, perhaps a band-aid can cure a decapitation, but I doubt it.

Consider this, if you will: Why should a better voting-system be allowed, unless the people who own the lawmakers want to cede government to the public? And 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. Any meaningful use of a voting-system pre-supposes a democracy.

So what makes so many think that we’ll have the opportunity to try some democracy? Without democracy, you needn’t worry about what the voting-system should be. It would be like shopping for an 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 George 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. Campaign Promises:

What if a candidate promised that, after being elected, they would do something, or to not do something, and then, upon election, acted oppositely to his promise? It happens all the time. And 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.

Bill Clinton got elected promising a middle-class tax-cut. In a speech or press-conference soon after he was elected, 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.

I don’t want to seem to be trying to discourage the work of promoting democracy in America, but I’d be a liar if I encouraged it as something that has a chance to work. As I have said before, work for improvement if you want to. Just don’t count on success.

FacebookLinkedInPinTweet

Filed Under: DC Authors

Some highlighted Democracy Chronicles topics

Africa American Corruption American Local Elections American State Elections Asia Capitalism and Big Business Celebrity Politics China Democracy Charity Democracy Protests Democrats Dictatorships Education Election History Election Methods Election Security Election Transparency Europe Internet and Democracy Journalism and Free Speech Middle East Minority Voting Rights Money Politics New York City and State Elections Political Artwork Political Dissidents Political Lobbying Redistricting Republicans Russia Socialism and Labor Social Media and Democracy South America Spying and Privacy Supreme Court Third Party Voter Access Voter ID Voter Registration Voter Suppression Voter Turnout Voting Technology Women Voting Rights Worldwide Worldwide Corruption

About Michael Ossipoff

Michael Ossipoff writes for Democracy Chronicles from Miami, Florida and is one of our earliest and most prolific authors and creators. His writing covers the world of election method reform verifiable election counts and the importance of independent and third party candidates.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Daniel LaLiberte says

    February 8, 2018 at 5:27 pm

    Exactly right. We don’t have much of a democracy now, and in many ways, we have an antidemocracy because people still believe the lies about what’s really going on, while letting the government and establishment powers continue to rule over us regardless.

    Reply
  2. John Moser says

    September 18, 2019 at 5:44 pm

    Michael, I thought you had left the voting scene. You were pretty serious long ago, and I heard it drained you.

    I will give you an answer on this one: the statistical anomalies when counting in a system where every vote has an equal impact (I invented one for single-seat elections) are immense if you want to do anything significant. Immense on the scale of just blatantly filling out additional ballots during the counting process because the election judge doesn’t like the results.

    I’m writing up a paper on the mass amount of electoral disenfranchisement inherent in voting systems, including the problem of mutual majority (a mutual majority destroys popular vote systems and is the major source of IRV’s breakage). At this point I’ve solved every tactical problem and broken all the criterion restrictions by fancy construction, I *think*. You’re welcome to contact me if you like.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

democracy chronicles newsletter

democracy around the web

  • Colombian journalist, wife wounded in targete...
    Source: Committee to Protect Journalists Published on: 2 hours ago
  • Rightward Shift Among Non-White Voters: A Com...
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 2 hours ago
  • On Gerontocracy
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 3 hours ago
  • Thanks to Rick Pildes
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 3 hours ago
  • “Gov. DeSantis signs measure putting FSU Elec...
    Source: Election Law Blog Published on: 6 hours ago