An interesting paper, but... OK. Whilst I agree with its basic point (it is possible for a democracy to be repressive and an autocracy to be liberal, but this is not the norm) I have no comment on the contents of the article. Which appears to be nothing more than a statistical analysis of a bunch of numbers which he admits previous researchers pulled out of their butt. Ok, ok, research has got to start somewhere but has political science really not advanced beyond this point? To answer the link texts question - he doesn't really state anything about democracy other than "It is categorised by conflict within the executive and a relatively open process of change" That sums up any number of possible systems, not just democracy. I mean, heck, it would fit a system where the members were chosen by lot and then only half of them could draw a salary. --Vitenka (Though I bet that would degenerate rapidly into a static team that kept the salary drawing power to itself.) Oooh - I also disagree with the assertion that governments tend towards liberal democracy over time. From (admittedly local) inspection, it seems more like a continual cycle.
My own observations over time appear to provide evidence for the view that published papers on politics tend to say that governments tend towards system-of-government-that-the-paper-was-written-under over time. Communism? is the bright future of humanity and all that.. ;) - MoonShadow
I bow to your superior quantity of study and accurate view of HumanNature?. --Vitenka (meow! political student catfight!) Wait. How can a paper be written under a cycle?
Everyone is well informed about the argument. Everyone votes. The majority wins, and everyone obeys. Repeat for each argument.
Sadly, learning the issues and voting take time and energy, and someone has to decide which issues are voted on - which allows the system to be gamed.
Basically - true democracy does not scale well.
OK, StuartFraser was going to object to this the last time it came up; instead he'll do it now. This is Athenian democracy; TrueDemocracy is a matter of opinion. The Greek Demos means "citizen body" not "people" (in the original Attic, anyway, I have no idea about modern Greek). In Athens a council of 500 (selected by lots) set the agenda for the popular assembly, btw.
Indeed. PeterTaylor has been known to claim on many an occasion that democracy doesn't work without slavery.
Certainly a commonly made claim, an apparantly born out by history. It is obvious that democracy as the athenians practiced it, minus the slave base (or inexhaustible supply of robot labour, as proposed by BobTheAngryFlower) doesn't work. But perhaps with some other change on top it does work? Representation is the choice taken by everyone I can think of - but is that the only viable option? --Vitenka
The Swiss are probably closest to Athenian democracy in the modern world.
Well, yes. They also didn't allow slaves to vote. I would classify Athenian democracy as:
TrueDemocracy of a smaller population than the whole country (just land owners, wasn't it?)
And secondly - improved to scale a bit better by using a simple random sampling method. Which improves the scaling some, but not vastly, since the 'learning about the issues' is the part which scales least well, and you'd need (most) people to do that so that the sample will hit a fair number of them. Then again, perhaps if you announced a sufficient time in advance?
Oh - and the 'system' for deciding which issues should be raised was by discussion - discussion isn't a part of my definition above. Purposely omitted, but obviously present in any half-sane implementation.
Oh, and yeah - I'm using Athenian as a model here. Using 'true' as a modify with a similar meaning as 'original intent of' - will that clarify suffieicntly? --Vitenka
No, because the Athenians certainly didn't intend everyone to vote --Mjb67
They certainly intended every leader to vote. How should I clarify my original declaration of 'everyone' to be 'everyone under discussion'? It's certainly a system strongly differentiate from single leader with advisers, or some form of weighted republic vote. --Vitenka
No. There are many forms of democracy. None of them is 'true'; they're just different ways of approaching the idea. Using 'true' is bringing in a loaded word for no good reason. --ChiarkPerson
Consider it a statement of my intent then. But I strongly disagree. The 'true' form of something is an ideal - and (in general) its original form most closely approaches that ideal, or if not, then explains what the ideal is it is aiming at and why it is unable to adhere to it. The word is loaded, yes, since I believe that no current democracy is a true democracy. I am using it to differentiate. There is nothing inherently wrong with this - there are perfectly good representative republics and so forth. An argument 'is (system x) better or worse that true democracy?' is a bit meaningless without at least some baseline to compare to. Of course, my baseline may not be sufficient - what would you use? (Generic 'other people please contribute' you, there) I don't see how we can get away from loaded words. 'Pure' is even worse. --Vitenka
Can I suggest the use of the (fairly standard) terms 'direct democracy' (the voters vote on the issues) as opposed to 'representative democracy' (you vote in representatives who decide everything), and the orthogonal concept of 'suffrage' to show who votes?
Democracy Type Modern Athenian
Universal suffrage no no
Direct no yes
Define "universal". Modern democracy only allows a large subset of citizens to vote - so the difference between modern and Athenian wrt suffrage are i) Athenian didn't have suffrage for women; ii) Athenian had a much lower citizen to total population ratio.
Universal is used in it's ordinary meaning - everyone. So yeah, modern democracies don't strictly have universal suffrage (for example, children can't vote). But it is a guiding principle.
Again, I guess it depends on your meaning of citizen. Are criminals citizens? Are they allowed to vote? Should they be? --Vitenka
Whether or not someone is a citizen is almost independent of whether or not they're a criminal. The only exception (and this is arguable as an exception) is that someone with dual citizenship may be stripped of citizenship if convicted of certain crimes.
I was being rhetorical with that bit, the should be was the interesting question. Kicking them out (as recently happenned) is a bit of a kludge in my mind.
That starts to sum it up. The assumption that those voting are well informed (representatives are informed of issues, citizens are well informed of their representatives' future voting habits) is missed out though. ... We also miss out party systems. Which both Athenian and modern had (have) and which aren't part of my definition. --Vitenka
If there were no parties, it would be necessary to invent them. The way to get things done is to make deals that you will support someone else's pet project if they will support yours. Eventually, between people who generally agree, these 'mutual support' arrangements become solidified and codified. And once one group has formed such a voting block, the other have to or they'll just get stepped on. Parties are inevitable. --ChiarkPerson
Ineveitable probably. Necc? Maybe. Good? Debatable. My point was that they aren't an innate part of a democracy and are amenable to separate discussion. (Or, more basically, that the table of comparison could do with mentioning them, and implying that a system without them could exist) - For example, they are only inevitable when the system is scaled up. With five people, you don't need parties - compromise between the group as a whole works as well as within subgroups. Perhaps some system exists which scales that up? --Vitenka
Vitenka says, "With five people, you don't need parties."
OK. So, five people come to a decision. One person goes to take it higher up. Five groups of five people come to a decision. One person goes to take it higher up. (rinse, lather, repeat)
Does the one person:
merely cast the group's majority vote in the higher-level vote?
take a point of view representing the compromise the group came to and argue, from that point rather than his own original one, for a compromise within the higher-level group?
get elected by the five as someone whose point of view they object to least, and argue his own original point in the higher-level group?
ISTM that in the first version, we end up with a simple majority vote. In the second version, we end up with an overall compromise. In the third version, we end up with an elected dictator.
Thoughts?
First case you almost end up with simple majority, but it can be gamed (across multiple trials) by correctly choosing the groups of five people. Second case should come to the same outcome as simple majority - but it'll be hard. On simple issues it works (I cast three fifths of a vote for and 1 fifth against) but more complex multiple vote things would be very hard to assure.
Second case assumed discussion at each level, rather than simple vote-casting. That is, the proposed actions change to a compromise. But yes, it can (I think) still be gamed, although it is much harder since everyone's position ends up weighting the final consensus slightly; and it is probably harder to reach radical decisions. - MoonShadow
Third case yes, comes to elected dictator. Didn't somewhere try that once? Year long terms, no possibility of re-election?
I have repeatedly heard arguments that this is basically what Britain has now, with a party at the tip rather than a dictator, and that this is a Good Thing. - MoonShadow
Democracy is a very good way of ensuring accountability, but a very very bad way of making decisions. --ChiarkPerson
You know, this sounds right, but I can't say why. After all, the blame for any bad decision (or reward for a good one) should be shared amongst everyone eligible to vote - yet this never really seems to be the practice. I suppose it works better to ensure that elected officials do what they promised to do (because otherwise they don't get voted for again) - but this seems a bit flaky in practice too. --Vitenka A good soundbite though.
Disagree - I've never voted for Labour, so why should I take any blame for Blair's actions?
Same reason you get the results of his actions - you're part of a consensus. An alternate system would be to allow splinter groups at every disagreement. Then you lose the benefit of being a society though. --Vitenka
So you're saying that I should either act as though we had the SecondAmendment? or take responsibility for the actions of someone I disagree with on many (most?) values, aims and motives?
Well, the intent of whole system is that the society as a whole supports and is represented by the decisions it makes. The minority are expected to go along with the majority for the good of the whole - and the majority are expected to continue supporting the minorities existence. I was just giving another (rather over the top) example system where that is not so. It does seem to be rather a sticking point though. How can it be resolved? There's no requirement that a split of opinion not be resolved amicably - on many issues it may be possible to do things both ways in different areas until one side is proven correct. On other issues... not so obvious. --Vitenka
It seems to me your argument supports making society as a whole, rather than those in it who actually voted, take responsibility for the decisions taken by their representatives. Which still seems silly to me in British representocracy, because the representatives don't actually represent the views of the people they represent.
Well.. that's sort of the point of democracy, isn't it? Or any regime that isn't actively fought against by its citizens. And if the British representation system doesn't actually work (and I would agree that it doesn't) then isn't it that implementations problem, rather than the concept as a whole? --Vitenka
PeterTaylor wonders whether he and Vitenka have been arguing mainly at cross purposes. I was arguing against what I took as your assertion that all eligible to vote should, as individuals, bear some blame for bad decisions. I wasn't arguing about whether or not democracy is a bad way to make decisions. Oh, and note that I continue to refuse to admit the suggestion that Britain be considered a democracy.
Well, that is the intent of the system. What with relatively free emigration, the choice really is "participate in the system or get out" - there's no-one who can really say "I had no choice". Whether it works that way or not in practice is another issue.. So, why isn't it working that way?
You know any islands which no-one claims sovereignty over that I could move to?
Another aspect to consider is stability. Republics tend to be built with multiple power bases pushing against each other - any imbalance (should be) corrected. (I think Sparta is the best historic example of that) Which styles of democracy are most resistant to evolving into tyrannies? (Obviously not MoonShadow's third example then) ;) --Vitenka
BasicDemocracy? perhaps? If we can come up with a better term, I'd like to refactor so that we can get on with a discussion of which features improve democracy, and which are features in the SoftwareEngineering? sense ;) --Vitenka
Reverse definition. A True Democracy isn't something where the majority of the populace want a particular decision, but the majority also believe that the opposite decision is inevitable. At what point does leadership become tyranny? --Vitenka (Yeah, ranting somewhat belatedly about the euro - my usual rant platform died)
Contention - a democracy is only as good as its voting system. Since it is possible to prove that there is no [true voting system], there can be no true democracy. --Angoel
It's not the voting that's democracy; it's the counting
![[Home]](/img/text_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
TrueDemocracy