All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[JimC]

But for a lot of issues, and going forward, if the expectation is that democracy will lead to good outcomes, the people have to be capable of producing those outcomes, and it seems to me that this is not dependent solely on their ability to participate.

These are 2 separate issues. The basic need for any democracy to ensure that the maximum number of eligible voters participates stands alone from any discussion of the outcomes of the voting process. To me, there are 2 parts to such a challenge. One is to ensure that there are no systemic issues which disenfranchise voters, and the second is to combat apathy, and to ensure that as many people as possible are committed to playing their part in democratic processes.

Then we have your issue of wanting "good outcomes". Of course, people will have a diverse range of opinions on what counts as "good outcomes". Here, I think that we simply need to be hopeful about the fruits of the changing zeitgeist...

[pErvinalia]

If we had the will of the people in the US, we'd have had Gore instead of Shrub, we'd have Hillary instead of Trump, the Senate would be controlled by Democrats, and the Scotus would be 7-2 liberal-conservative. The trouble with the US isn't too much democracy; the problem is that there is barely any democracy to speak of.

By the will of the people the US has engaged in numerous senseless foreign wars, desegregation took longer than it should have, welfare has been seen as harmful, abortion remains a contentious issue, and gay marriage was unthinkable until recently...

I think you may be dizzy from the success of having the wind at your back today.

You've totally missed his point. Gerrymandering isn't the "will of the people".

[Sean Hayden]

I didn't miss his point. The will of the people does not necessarily lead to favorable outcomes. I gave examples of when the will of the people stood in the way. It's a reasonable response to the claim that what stands in the way of good outcomes is a lack of participation in decision making.

[Tero]

But you don't need gerrymandering. Rurals always win. And even more:

Why Big-City Dominance Is a Problem for Democrats
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ts/617161/

[Sean Hayden]

But for a lot of issues, and going forward, if the expectation is that democracy will lead to good outcomes, the people have to be capable of producing those outcomes, and it seems to me that this is not dependent solely on their ability to participate.

These are 2 separate issues. The basic need for any democracy to ensure that the maximum number of eligible voters participates stands alone from any discussion of the outcomes of the voting process. To me, there are 2 parts to such a challenge. One is to ensure that there are no systemic issues which disenfranchise voters, and the second is to combat apathy, and to ensure that as many people as possible are committed to playing their part in democratic processes.

Then we have your issue of wanting "good outcomes". Of course, people will have a diverse range of opinions on what counts as "good outcomes". Here, I think that we simply need to be hopeful about the fruits of the changing zeitgeist...

You mean that it is possible to ensure as many people vote as can without worrying about the outcome, and I agree. That is possible. But what good is it? Who votes cannot possibly be irrelevant to the outcome, and hoping for the best hardly sounds promising or reasonable...

[pErvinalia]

I didn't miss his point. The will of the people does not necessarily lead to favorable outcomes. I gave examples of when the will of the people stood in the way.

No you didn't. You gave examples of where the will of a minority stood in the way of the will of the majority.

[Sean Hayden]

No, I didn't. The majority opinion saw efforts at desegregation as moving too quickly. The majority supported the Gulf War, and majority opinion did not support gay marriage until --I think-- ~2005.

[pErvinalia]

How do you know? You don't have a majoritarian system.

[Sean Hayden]

Admittedly I'm relying on polling, but none of the examples are particularly controversial.

[JimC]

But for a lot of issues, and going forward, if the expectation is that democracy will lead to good outcomes, the people have to be capable of producing those outcomes, and it seems to me that this is not dependent solely on their ability to participate.

These are 2 separate issues. The basic need for any democracy to ensure that the maximum number of eligible voters participates stands alone from any discussion of the outcomes of the voting process. To me, there are 2 parts to such a challenge. One is to ensure that there are no systemic issues which disenfranchise voters, and the second is to combat apathy, and to ensure that as many people as possible are committed to playing their part in democratic processes.

Then we have your issue of wanting "good outcomes". Of course, people will have a diverse range of opinions on what counts as "good outcomes". Here, I think that we simply need to be hopeful about the fruits of the changing zeitgeist...

You mean that it is possible to ensure as many people vote as can without worrying about the outcome, and I agree. That is possible. But what good is it? Who votes cannot possibly be irrelevant to the outcome, and hoping for the best hardly sounds promising or reasonable...

The part of your post that I've highlighted is a slippery slope into some very dangerous territory. Clearly it is true in a bald sense - if only white folk voted in the US, or only people with college degrees, or only those who can pass a science exam, or a history exam, or... we'd have very different outcomes.

Putting any except the most obvious limitations on voting (an age limit, possibly limits on those serving jail sentences...) runs a clear risk of distorting democracy even further than current levels. Who decides who votes, and in whose interests would that be?

In general, there are a variety of aspects of how a given society functions that will affect what might call the quality of choice exercised by a voter. Amongst those would be the quality and extent of a society's education system, and the diversity and quality of mass media, as well as how well a society defends itself from malign external influences with their own agenda. There is no magic bullet, but disenfranchising significant parts of a society will always be the wrong choice.

[JimC]

No, I didn't. The majority opinion saw efforts at desegregation as moving too quickly. The majority supported the Gulf War, and majority opinion did not support gay marriage until --I think-- ~2005.

The "until" underlines the fact that there is some reality in my possibly naive suggestion that the changing zeitgeist is one source of hope for the future...

[Tero]

Trump to knock off a piece of civil service. It's already signed.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/28/politics ... index.html

The constitution does not require even a cabinet, let alone departments.

[Sean Hayden]

But for a lot of issues, and going forward, if the expectation is that democracy will lead to good outcomes, the people have to be capable of producing those outcomes, and it seems to me that this is not dependent solely on their ability to participate.

These are 2 separate issues. The basic need for any democracy to ensure that the maximum number of eligible voters participates stands alone from any discussion of the outcomes of the voting process. To me, there are 2 parts to such a challenge. One is to ensure that there are no systemic issues which disenfranchise voters, and the second is to combat apathy, and to ensure that as many people as possible are committed to playing their part in democratic processes.

Then we have your issue of wanting "good outcomes". Of course, people will have a diverse range of opinions on what counts as "good outcomes". Here, I think that we simply need to be hopeful about the fruits of the changing zeitgeist...

You mean that it is possible to ensure as many people vote as can without worrying about the outcome, and I agree. That is possible. But what good is it? Who votes cannot possibly be irrelevant to the outcome, and hoping for the best hardly sounds promising or reasonable...

The part of your post that I've highlighted is a slippery slope into some very dangerous territory. Clearly it is true in a bald sense - if only white folk voted in the US, or only people with college degrees, or only those who can pass a science exam, or a history exam, or... we'd have very different outcomes.

Putting any except the most obvious limitations on voting (an age limit, possibly limits on those serving jail sentences...) runs a clear risk of distorting democracy even further than current levels. Who decides who votes, and in whose interests would that be?

In general, there are a variety of aspects of how a given society functions that will affect what might call the quality of choice exercised by a voter. Amongst those would be the quality and extent of a society's education system, and the diversity and quality of mass media, as well as how well a society defends itself from malign external influences with their own agenda. There is no magic bullet, but disenfranchising significant parts of a society will always be the wrong choice.

Millions have no interest in politics, what good is their opinion on these matters? What is the harm of acknowledging their inability to contribute meaningfully to difficult decisions?

--always wrong is too strong

[Hermit]

I didn't miss his point. The will of the people does not necessarily lead to favorable outcomes.

No matter what the outcome turns out to be, judgement on it will always be split by definition unless the vote is unanimous. And when does that ever happen? People who are in favour of capital punishment will always regard its abolition as an unfavourable outcome. It's reintroduction will always be regarded as an unfavourable outcome by opponents of capital punishment. You can argue until you are blue in the face which is which.

In regard to the numerous senseless foreign wars, it is possible that - given the chance - a majority might have voted in favour of at least some of them, but they were not, and those wars happened anyway. The possibility of unfavourable outcomes on grounds of a majority vote is a red herring unless you can demonstrate that unfavourable outcomes are a more likely result if policies are determined on those grounds.

[Sean Hayden]

Rule by the majority may produce favorable outcomes, it may not. The claim as I understand it is that unfavorable outcomes are the result of a lack of participation. If more people participate, the outcomes will be better.

This isn't exactly analogous to majority rule, but the idea that the more people get involved the closer policy will be to favorable --ie progressive-- does rely on a majority being convinced to at least vote like progressives. Showing how majorities have often failed to support progress calls into question the viability of such a suggestion.

More importantly to me, it challenges the expectations being set by Monbiot in his video.

I imagine Monbiot might counter that the democratic process, as he imagines it, necessarily leads to exactly that. It's transformative. Yes, the majority will support terrible policy, but not if they're encouraged to participate in the right way...