I wish I could take credit for the name, but alas, it is simply one which I picked up from the Illarion forums.
So, in case you're not sharp enough, the title is a play on the terms Democracy and crazy. Yep its an anti-democracy blog. But how could one be against democracy? Its the best thing since sliced bread.
For the purpose of this blog, I will assume a non-representative democracy. This way we take out the human factor, bribes, lobbies and other effects which work on human leaders.
To demonstrate what exactly is wrong, I will use an example. Let us say that in a society there is referendum on whether GM foods should be banned. The society will be divided into these sets (which are non mutually exclusive, but are complete).
1. People who don't care. These people will either not vote, or vote randomly. Useless.
2. People who are driven through politics. This is popular in Malta. One party says one thing, the other party says the other. Useless.
3. People who have wrong impressions of the topic. This could be from various reasons. They simply do not know what GM foods are, and have no idea about the effect of GM foods on humans, and on the economy. Useless.
4. People directed by the media. This is popular in the U$A. The GM food companies will openly and subvertly spam "GM food is good for you! 9 out of 10 people wearing white coats agree!". Useless
5. People who know about the topic. These people have researched and are able to take a good decision. Useful.
6. Domain experts. These are scientists who have worked in the field, have performed experiments and know all there is about GM foods. Very Useful.
7. Traditionalists, Liberalists or other hard-headed group. STICK IT TO THE MAN! THE MAN WANTS TO DECIDE WHAT WE CAN OR CAN'T EAT!!!11one. Useless.
In an ideal world - to take an informed decision, you need information. The sets 5 and 6 will be generally the best groups to take a decision - but will be the smallest. Good going.
So the decision is not taken by people who actually know what's going on, but by the masses who don't. The scientist who has worked his life in the field, has the exact same vote on this (and other topics) as Pietru the wall painter.
-
Another problem with Democracy is that it scales horribly. In the ideal working case it would be that a number of people 5...6? Have a problem, discuss between them and vote. Works. At worst, you have 2 or 3 people who don't really agree.
Try the same in a large country. The US has upwards of 300 million people living there. At worst you have 150 million people who don't agree.
-
The solution is simple. If we want to keep our tradition of letting the people's voices be heard, at least filter out the noise. Put prerequisites on voting. Only domain experts should be allowed to vote in issues. Perhaps, to increase the number, add also people who have read the literature of both sides and are smart enough to take a logical decision. Don't leave it in the hands of the masses - that's what causes these messes.
The Llama
I love how Europeans tend to think, "Oh. The poor American zombies and how their lives are run by their media and their big corporations" and then they go to the movie theater and watch Hollywood movies and eat a McDonald's hamburger.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, corruption in our highest level of government has more to do with our electoral system than anything else. This is why people feel powerless here. This is why people give up on voting. And sadly, this is also why people go off the deep end and join a Tea Party.
In any case, for every nation there is a stereotype and we in the "U$A" are burdened with a stereotype of gullibility and greed. Ah well. You can choose not to believe me when I tell you that the average American is likely not all too different than the average Maltese.
Unfortunately, it's often our worst who are loudest on the internet, but I haven't seen any different from Europeans or people from any country, truthfully.
A little anecdote:
I was in a real time chat about ten years ago when the Bush administration was starting to make their (largely fantasy-based) case for a preemptive war against Iraq and the anti-Americans, angry for obvious reasons, had come out of the woodwork to punish all us yanks for the decisions of a president that none of those present voted for or liked on any level.
People from a dozen or so countries each took turns flinging insults and the Americans in the chat room had more or less given up on defending themselves. After all, we agreed with all but the crazy or hateful commentary: the war was wrong. Finally the agonizers began to pat each other on the back and then one of them that had lead the charge, a woman from New Zealand, made a homophobic comment about how Americans are sick because they allow gay marriage (this was just after the highly-contentious Massachusetts decision that legalized same-sex marriages).
You would figure that the group would have something to say about the odious comments of this one woman, but it largely went ignored. We, on the other hand, were called monsters, bigots, and hateful people.
I've never judged Europeans (or New Zealanders), for the example that day, but I know I've been judged or mistreated for the decisions of a handful of presidents I haven't voted for.
Well I didn't plan on making this US centric. I only mentioned them under media because of an experience I had.
ReplyDeleteDuring the "Net Neutrality debate" , I had heard COUNTLESS people who had the impression that Net Neutrality meant "Enforcing government rules on the internet" and "Forcing for example, news agencies to put links to rival agencies so we have balance".
Now anyone with his head in the correct place knows that net neutrality has nothing to do with either of that. Its no wonder that this strawman argument was disseminated on a mass media scale.
Same with the Healthcare debate - I remember seeing an ad on a website "Obamacare: Stop him" with a photoshopped image of Obama wearing medical clothing.
I should point out that my problem with the electoral system isn't that it exists. I disagree on that matter. Perhaps I'm a dreamer, but I believe that rather than only allowing experts to vote, one should make the voters experts. Real, factual information should be available on the parties and candidates, including their platforms, their voting records, their histories, and who their campaigns are funded by in an easy-to-access, digestible manner and students should be educated in how our government works and know the Bill of Rights. It should be a shameful, unpatriotic act to go to the poll uninformed, and just as shameful and unpatriotic to note vote at all.
ReplyDeleteHowever, we should also be able to ride unicorns to work and there should be no more war and unlimited chocolates for everyone.