Comments

6 responses to “Direct Democracy”

1. 

   International

   December 20, 2017

   In direct democracy, you’d hope that voters inform themselves of the relevant issues, including what they believe the scope of politics ought to be. But in representative democracy, this is not so. In choosing a representative, a voter expressly relinquishes the duty to be informed, and delegates that to the elected representative. This sets up a principal/agent problem, of course, but the information requirement is different. At a higher level, voters in such a system should be more concerned about the general philosophy, honesty, and trustworthiness of their representative than about every single issue. In our form of democracy, the principal/agent problem is palpable. This is not just a question about *issues* per se, but equally about democratic processes. How do I keep myself knowledgeable about the shenanigans my (or your) representative is up to? How does Congress the agenda and the vote-trading? How do special interests gain access and benefits? Thus, in representative democracy process problems are more directly relevant for voters than issues. Voter control over democratic processes are sorely lacking. See Article 1 Sec. 5, the Rules clause. In a better functioning democracy, we, the principals, should have more control over the process. Absent that, the agents run the business pretty unconstrained, and we get a very convoluted democratic order with rules made by politicians for politicians.

   Reply
2. 

   International

   December 20, 2017

   In direct democracy, you’d hope that voters inform themselves of the relevant issues, including what they believe the scope of politics ought to be. But in representative democracy, this is not so. In choosing a representative, a voter expressly relinquishes the duty to be informed, and delegates that to the elected representative. This sets up a principal/agent problem, of course, but the information requirement is different. At a higher level, voters in such a system should be more concerned about the general philosophy, honesty, and trustworthiness of their representative than about every single issue. In our form of democracy, the principal/agent problem is palpable. This is not just a question about *issues* per se, but equally about democratic processes. How do I keep myself knowledgeable about the shenanigans my (or your) representative is up to? How does Congress the agenda and the vote-trading? How do special interests gain access and benefits? Thus, in representative democracy process problems are more directly relevant for voters than issues. Voter control over democratic processes are sorely lacking. See Article 1 Sec. 5, the Rules clause. In a better functioning democracy, we, the principals, should have more control over the process. Absent that, the agents run the business pretty unconstrained, and we get a very convoluted democratic order with rules made by politicians for politicians.

   Reply
3. 

   International

   December 20, 2017

   How is a free market like voting? That is an assumption. Free markets have certain constraints on them that voting does not (for example, naked pursuit of self-interest can lead to bankruptcy in a free market, naked pursuit of self-interest in the voting booth can lead to… well, a vote).

   This is where basic civics come in. When voting, you take into account both what is best for you and what is best for society. There should be a great deal of overlap between them. But voting is both an individualistic and a communitarian enterprise. To do otherwise would just lead to people voting for decreased taxes for themselves, and increased entitlements for themselves, knowing that someone else (future generations) would pay for it.

   Reply
4. 

   International

   December 20, 2017

   How is a free market like voting? That is an assumption. Free markets have certain constraints on them that voting does not (for example, naked pursuit of self-interest can lead to bankruptcy in a free market, naked pursuit of self-interest in the voting booth can lead to… well, a vote).

   This is where basic civics come in. When voting, you take into account both what is best for you and what is best for society. There should be a great deal of overlap between them. But voting is both an individualistic and a communitarian enterprise. To do otherwise would just lead to people voting for decreased taxes for themselves, and increased entitlements for themselves, knowing that someone else (future generations) would pay for it.

   Reply
5. 

   International

   December 20, 2017

   Interesting is the issue regarding the rationality of even attempting to become informed given our political system. In a representative democracy, we don’t vote for issues, we vote for candidates. In our representative democracy, that means voting for one of two people (in almost all cases) with one of two philosophies towards government.

   Thus, I as a voter have a choice between two individuals, and my level of understanding of the issues has no bearing on that choice. I can be the most informed voter in the country, or the least informed voter in the country, but I have the same choice: candidate R or candidate D.

   As an example (which I think is probably a pretty universally applicable example): suppose I am a voter with a roughly ‘R’ philosophy towards governmental policy. I know that if I vote ‘R’ in an election, the candidate will do what I want about 70% of the time. If I vote ‘D’ in an election, the candidate will do what I want roughly 30% of the time. It doesn’t matter whether I know everything there is to know about Healthcare (as an example): I may, after a great deal of study, learn that I actually disagree with candidate ‘R’ on this issue (its in the 30% of issues with which I disagree), and agree with candidate ‘D’ on this issue. But system wide, I know I will still agree with candidate ‘R’ 70% of the time and only agree with candidate ‘D’ 30% of the time. Thus, unless, I’m a single isseu voter, I would stick with my philosophical cohort.

   So what good does it do to become informed on healthcare? Becoming informed on issues should only matter in two instances: when one is a single issue voter (and thus would learn that one’s philosophyical cohort actually disagrees on that one issue) or when one learns that he disagrees with his philosophical cohort, and actually agrees, in broad terms, with the other party (and so would change-in my example, to voting ‘D’ with a 30% disagreement rate).
   Note that this is different from other ‘rational ignorance’ arguments (which say that the time investment in learning about issues enough to vote intelligently isn’t worth it-because individual issues don’t have that much of an effect on our lives to justify the time investment in learning). This is arguing that in representative democracy, it doesn’t even make sense to learn about issues (outside of the two situations described above). The classic argument for voting ignorance still presumes that becoming informed would affect our vote choice. I am arguing that becoming informed wouldn’t even affect our vote choice in most instances (even if it would affect one’s opinion on a particular issue), so why bother.

   As an aside: how do we ‘select’ our philsophical views towards the role of government? Probably an irrational combination of upbringing, work ethic, compassion, and a bit of reading/thinking to top it off-in other words, an irrational, emotional, almost ‘instinctive’ going with the gut-i.e. exactly the way most of us vote.

   Reply
6. 

   International

   December 20, 2017

   Interesting is the issue regarding the rationality of even attempting to become informed given our political system. In a representative democracy, we don’t vote for issues, we vote for candidates. In our representative democracy, that means voting for one of two people (in almost all cases) with one of two philosophies towards government.

   Thus, I as a voter have a choice between two individuals, and my level of understanding of the issues has no bearing on that choice. I can be the most informed voter in the country, or the least informed voter in the country, but I have the same choice: candidate R or candidate D.

   As an example (which I think is probably a pretty universally applicable example): suppose I am a voter with a roughly ‘R’ philosophy towards governmental policy. I know that if I vote ‘R’ in an election, the candidate will do what I want about 70% of the time. If I vote ‘D’ in an election, the candidate will do what I want roughly 30% of the time. It doesn’t matter whether I know everything there is to know about Healthcare (as an example): I may, after a great deal of study, learn that I actually disagree with candidate ‘R’ on this issue (its in the 30% of issues with which I disagree), and agree with candidate ‘D’ on this issue. But system wide, I know I will still agree with candidate ‘R’ 70% of the time and only agree with candidate ‘D’ 30% of the time. Thus, unless, I’m a single isseu voter, I would stick with my philosophical cohort.

   So what good does it do to become informed on healthcare? Becoming informed on issues should only matter in two instances: when one is a single issue voter (and thus would learn that one’s philosophyical cohort actually disagrees on that one issue) or when one learns that he disagrees with his philosophical cohort, and actually agrees, in broad terms, with the other party (and so would change-in my example, to voting ‘D’ with a 30% disagreement rate).
   Note that this is different from other ‘rational ignorance’ arguments (which say that the time investment in learning about issues enough to vote intelligently isn’t worth it-because individual issues don’t have that much of an effect on our lives to justify the time investment in learning). This is arguing that in representative democracy, it doesn’t even make sense to learn about issues (outside of the two situations described above). The classic argument for voting ignorance still presumes that becoming informed would affect our vote choice. I am arguing that becoming informed wouldn’t even affect our vote choice in most instances (even if it would affect one’s opinion on a particular issue), so why bother.

   As an aside: how do we ‘select’ our philsophical views towards the role of government? Probably an irrational combination of upbringing, work ethic, compassion, and a bit of reading/thinking to top it off-in other words, an irrational, emotional, almost ‘instinctive’ going with the gut-i.e. exactly the way most of us vote.

   Reply