Russ Paielli wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Juho Laatu <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
What didi people think before the nowadays generally agreed idea
that all countries should be democratic. Maybe some idealists
discussed the possibility that one day ordinary people might rule
the country. I'm sure many others laughed at them and told them that
such changes are dangerous and will never work, particularly since
they are not in the interest of the current rulers, nor any other
rulers that might overthrow the current rulers. So reforms are just
a joke and idealistic dreams like democracy will never work. There
would quickly be some new rulers that would kick the poor commoners
out and probably even kill them.
I'll probably get a bit off topic here, but I think it is important to
understand that democracy itself is almost worthless without
Constitutionally guaranteed individual rights (as distinct from bogus
"group rights"). That's what the American revolution was all about. The
founders certainly did not want a "pure" democracy. They know very well
where that majority rule would lead a tyranny of the majority. That's
why they gave us the Bill of Rights.
The UK doesn't have a written constitution nor a Bill of Rights, yet it
seems to manage. If anything, it is the European country closest to the
United States in policy matters.
The main problem with our political system today is that far too few
people understand what freedom and individual rights mean. The Bill of
Rights is just the start of it. Property rights are essential to any
real notion of freedom, and they are also essential to prosperity. When
half the population thinks the gov't should take from those who have
"too much" and give to others who "don't have enough," we are in
trouble. Yet that's exactly where we are. The greatest election methods
in the world cannot save us from those kind of voters.
"The greatest election methods in the world" could even increase
redistribution. According to Warren Smith's page on proportional
representation (http://rangevoting.org/PropRep.html, "What does
economics say?"), countries with increasing amounts of PR also have
bigger governments and less economic inequality (which is usually
accomplished through redistribution, such as by progressive taxes). To
some extent, it appears that the people want this. See, for instance,
the "ideal" income distributions, as given by the public, mentioned in
http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely.pdf .
If people want redistribution, then giving them more democracy will lead
to more redistribution. If that is a problem with the people, then it is
a problem with democracy, and as such, a more accurate democracy would
have a greater problem with it.
Even if it's an effect of proportional representation, the method,
rather than an increasingly accurate reflection of the wishes of the
people, that would still mean proportional representation would lead to
more redistribution.
The fundamental problem now is that too many of us actually want to go
back to a state in which gov't is our master rather than our servant. If
gov't can arbitrarily take from you when it thinks you have too much, it
is the master, and we are the servants. Why is that so hard for some to
understand?
Another reason for the link between PR and government size might be that
when the people are more accurately represented, they feel that the
government is less "them" and more "us". To the extent that happens, the
concept of dominance is weakened: if the government is "us" then "us
mastering ourselves" is no dangerous relation.
I have no proof of that, though; to get it, I would have to ask people
in PR democracies and non-PR democracies to what degree they think the
government is of, by, and for the people.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
