Electoral reform - A top issue

[Replicant Sasquatch]

That's an oversimplification. People who don't own property still stand to lose by bad decisions, plus there's that whole paying taxes thing.

That said, I think there's a lot to be said for a system that requires people to earn their vote. I'm the weirdo among my friends because I'm the one who does not think starship troopers was too authoritarian. Like, I don't appreciate that some shithead who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and that obama's birth certificate is fake no matter what evidence there is, or that vaccines are a conspiracy because they've never even known anyone who had measles... I don't like the fact that person should get a vote that counts as much as mine. Every other form of power with reaching consequences that affect other lives, we say comes with responsibility, but not voting?

Problem is who gets to decide who is and is not responsible enough? Heinlein made a compelling point about veterans and public servants having an implicitly better understanding of civic responsibility. I kind of agree with him but blanket statements like that are usually bad news. Just because someone's been around blood and guts doesn't mean he's immune from being a short-sighted asshole. And just because a guy spends his whole life sitting at a desk doesn't mean he's irresponsible and selfish. Joe Haldeman's Forever War paints a similar society. But it isn't efficient or morally upright. It's jingoistic and aggressive. Heinlein's Federation isn't, it's based on Switzerland after all. But Switzerland isn't the US or the world.

I admire the idea of public service. A proper society should value it and reward it. But I also believe people have a right to self-determination and the government saying "if you don't carry a gun and do what we tell you then you're just a dumb fucking normie with no business telling us how things should be" is a gross violation of the social contract. That kind of thinking is medieval, plain and simple.

 

[TowinKarz]

"Social Contract" is a good way of putting it.

As long as you are being the proverbial "good citizen" then your end of the contract is kept and you cannot in good faith be denied your vote. Which is why I really don't have a problem with the current "every adult gets a vote provided they are not a felon" system.

Once you start from a position of "your vote must be earned through your good behavior" then you are always going to be at the mercy of whoever makes that call looking at you and telling you "sorry, not good enough".

Armchair revolutionaries and social tinkerers never seem to get that human rights exist and governments can only take them away. If you are lucky, you'll live in the fair and reasonable condition of having a government that only takes them if they've clearly been used to harm others. Too many have it backwards and think the government gives those rights ( or should only give them to certain "worthy" groups) and that's the tiny crack that every despot and wannabe despot in the world, past present and future, will put their grimy claws and pull, justifying it with "these rabble haven't EARNED it"

I can't get behind that line of thought.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

Problem is who gets to decide who is and is not responsible enough? Heinlein made a compelling point about veterans and public servants having an implicitly better understanding of civic responsibility. I kind of agree with him but blanket statements like that are usually bad news. Just because someone's been around blood and guts doesn't mean he's immune from being a short-sighted asshole.

Blanket statements are absolutely always bad news.

Heinlein tries to handwave it with a single line in the book where a teacher mentions that crime rates and degeneracy are no lower among veterans than among civilians. It seems a natural thing to expand that to a discussion of why veterans would vote better than civilians; he sort of dances around it by suggesting that entering military service is so discouraged that only those who want to do so to serve the public selflessly are left, but this is a very rosy view of the ability of enlightened sophists to casually rise above humanity's shortcomings (and you'll notice this pattern of dismissive condescension among protagonists quickly if you read any of his other novels). I always maintain that it's just the spirit of the concept I like - I fully admit I have no idea how it could be implemented successfully.

I should read the Forever War series. I've always heard good things and maybe it will expand my thinking a bit.

Once you start from a position of "your vote must be earned through your good behavior" then you are always going to be at the mercy of whoever makes that call looking at you and telling you "sorry, not good enough".

Armchair revolutionaries and social tinkerers never seem to get that human rights exist and governments can only take them away.

This is an excellent point. Just governments exist to earn the people's approval, only tyranny works the other way.

But the devil's advocacy must ask: which votes are really about your rights? The example I always think of is gay marriage. I don't really believe marriage itself should be under the purview of the state, but the way it is as such there are legitimate financial, medical, and child custody benefits, and so long as some couples get it I think all couples should. If a person who doesn't like gays votes against a candidate or referendum because they would give marriage to the gays, what personal rights are they defending? Or are they just enforcing a spiteful class system in an ostensibly classless democracy, by denying rights to others?

Then again, it's not always about rights. You also vote based on how you want the direction of your country to go. And if someone wants to make an informed argument about why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed I'll listen. I just get annoyed when people think they can decide other people's rights without putting in a little effort and good faith. So of course a just government doesn't exist to take away rights... maybe some lazy voters need to be reminded of that. In a democracy, the people are supposed to be that government, and arguably are violating the social contract by putting the boot on their fellow citizens' necks.

But then, mob rule is the (seemingly) unavoidable downside of democracy.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

The Forever War is a good contrast to Starship Troopers but told from the perspective of someone who doesn't take his government's word at face value. This is why I don't like applying Starship Troopers to my political philosophies. The ideas are interesting but Juan Rico is a tool of the state. I can't trust him as a narrator because he rarely internalizes anything and when he does he always winds up agreeing with his superiors. It's really easy to present a glitzy interpretation of your politics when the characters rarely ever challenge what they're told (and when they do they get immediately shut down by one of the millions of Steve Rogers expies running this planet).

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

That kind of thinking is medieval, plain and simple.

Some medieval thought was demonstrably good. The idea that the rich owed something back to the poor who propped them up, however hard it may or may not have sometimes failed in practice, was an idea that modern society should not have sacrificed. The idea that you can never completely eliminate the wealth gap and that classes should cooperate rather than oppose one another, was another good one. Or that people, no matter how educated, will never be robotic creatures of pure rationalism. Modern democracy would stand to learn something.

Then again, it's not always about rights. You also vote based on how you want the direction of your country to go. And if someone wants to make an informed argument about why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed I'll listen.

I oppose gay marriage as an institution because I think granting it further legitimizes the institution of state marriage, which I hate, and which should confer no benefits to anyone. It infringes on the rights of religion, on gay people, on just about everyone, by having the government define what was always a purely religious or social concept. At least, a secular state should have no state marriage. The solution was to abolish marriage privileges for the straights, not to extend those insane incentives to the gays, who will not provide any of the expected results of those benefits anyway in most cases. Just like heterosexuals don't anymore. Secular, state, marriage is an obviously archaic and foolish institution.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

The Forever War is a good contrast to Starship Troopers but told from the perspective of someone who doesn't take his government's word at face value. This is why I don't like applying Starship Troopers to my political philosophies. The ideas are interesting but Juan Rico is a tool of the state. I can't trust him as a narrator because he rarely internalizes anything and when he does he always winds up agreeing with his superiors. It's really easy to present a glitzy interpretation of your politics when the characters rarely ever challenge what they're told (and when they do they get immediately shut down by one of the millions of Steve Rogers expies running this planet).

Heinlein was kind of an immature writer because literally every character who had the "correct" beliefs didn't hold them for good reasons, they just became author mouthpieces and constantly blew each other while dismissing any valid criticism. He was kind of a fanfiction writer before the internet.

I oppose gay marriage as an institution because I think granting it further legitimizes the institution of state marriage, which I hate, and which should confer no benefits to anyone. It infringes on the rights of religion, on gay people, on just about everyone, by having the government define what was always a purely religious or social concept.

This is a great position. I obviously choose to take it the other way in the end, but I'd rather have someone like you vote against me based on reasoning than someone vote with me because they support their liberal team colors.

It's a lot more valuable to be told no by someone who thinks than to be supported by someone who doesn't.

 

[AnOminous]

Armchair revolutionaries and social tinkerers never seem to get that human rights exist and governments can only take them away.

Governments can't actually take rights away. They can only violate them. Some rights are fundamental to what it means to be human, i.e. a sapient entity capable of reasoning and self-determination.

This isn't quite objective reality in the sense gravity is, but with a fairly minimal assumptions the general idea of human rights can be derived, whether that's something like the libertarian non-aggression principle, an idea of "God-given" natural rights, or some other principles like self-determination, right to bodily integrity, etc.

At least Western democracies generally have some safeguards, differing in type and degree, attempting to prevent the worst abuses by government, in the knowledge that governments without such limitations invariably turn bad.

Unlike the general idea of rights, this can be measured somewhat objectively in terms like standard of living, quality of life, lifespan, gross national product, etc. and so-called "Western-style" or "liberal democracies" consistently average much higher standards of living and other measures of societal success. While countries like China have shown it is possible to have some degree of economic success and somewhat free economies while ranking very low in their general respect of human rights, I'd still stack up any Western democracy against China as a place I'd willingly live.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

While countries like China have shown it is possible to have some degree of economic success and somewhat free economies while ranking very low in their general respect of human rights,

I feel like this is a heavy consequence of intent. The US formed with freedom as its raison d'etre (arguments about a history of poor execution notwithstanding). China is "modern" but only because they felt a need to play catch-up so they could compete economically.

 

[TowinKarz]

Good point, I should have said "repress" instead of "take".

And for all the flaws, once established, direct democracy seems to at least provide nominal levels of stability, peace, cultural flourish and economic prosperity, Europe is far more stable now than a mere 250-300 years ago. For all the bellyaching and fist-shaking at Brussels and Berlin, the major powers are not going to march armies on one another. You used to be able to set your watch by when the troops marched through the low countries....

For all the junior communists pointing out wealth-gaps this and imperialist-economic-that, North America hasn't seen arms drawn in anger on it's soil in 150 some years.... Yes, not everyone can afford a Ferrari, big deal. You can have a roof over your head, electricity, running water, reliable sewage, internet, a car, maybe two, and STILL be considered poor around here, and the only way you're going to starve to death is if you WORK at it by doing it somewhere where no one sees you collapse or else you'll wake up in a hospital bed (yes, with a bill, but that's besides the point)

That says something about progress, however cynical you wish to be. And look at what the desire to have shiny toys has done, countries like China have had to take the shackles off, if only by degrees, because as you said, they had to fit into the modern capitalist trade and banking system somewhere....

The moralists can cry all they wish about capitalist democracies turning everyone into fat consumerist pigs, but you know what? Fat pigs are too unfit to go to war and wouldn't want to anyway since their stuff might get broken. Isn't there just a little upside in that?

 

[Zeorus]

The idea of people earning their votes actually isn't unheard of in left-wing circles, either - I've heard a lot of talk like that among (non-lolcow) anarchists and libertarian socialists. It's often attached to the idea that he who does not work does not eat. Likewise, he who does not contribute to the society in question (however big or small) doesn't get as much of a say (if any at all) in the collective decision-making processes. Couple this with the motivation to find work for everyone to do in an anarchist/libertarian socialist/confederalist society, and the only people who suffer (in theory, but to a certain extent in practice) are the truly slothful.

Setting aside the pipedream of anarchism, I'm an STV guy myself. Ultimately, I think a multi-party system in which the members of the voting public can vote according to the dictates of their conscience rather than voting strategically (or worst of all, voting against someone instead of for someone) is the best way to ensure that the people get what they want and are exposed to a wide enough variety of political ideas to be informed voters.

 

[SpectateSwamp]

The problem with elections is the Candidates.
A disproportional percent are Chamber of Commerce members.
They would off-shore and out-source everything for a buck.

We have to work hard to get non CofC candidates elected. That will solve everything.

 

[Jeremy Corbyn]

STV. Take a look at the UK's 2015 election to see why.

Purple got 12.6% of the vote, got 1 seat.

Yellow got 4.7% of the vote, got 56 seats.