What is the 'proper' outcome of an election?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by BigT

you guys seriously think there is no democratic ideal? Really?

Correct.

Originally Posted by BigT

Of course there is: the ideal is that every person has equal say. The ideal is that everyone is educated on the issues and makes a rational decision. If you have no ideal, you have no concept.

That's not enough.

Let's simplify the problem. Let's ignore the complicating factors of a large population, corruption, financial influence, and so on. Let's say, instead, that you wish to be an educated voter and have come to me for advice. I am a friend and true neutral party, and genuinely wish to convey the right information to make you a truly empowered voter as close to the democratic ideal as possible.

The first thing to note is that almost no matter what I say, I will influence your vote. So in some sense I have already strayed from a kind of ideal--one in which every voter is free from external influences. But let's suppose that this is too esoteric an ideal, and that we go with your claim that educated, rational voters are the ideal.

Now, how to I go about educating you properly? I have finite time and you have finite patience. Do I give equal time to covering all the candidates? Or do I only spend time on the likely winners? What about those candidates that are, for lack of a better word, nuts? Of course, that's just like my opinion, man. There's someone out there that thinks the nuts are completely reasonable. Maybe you're one of them. Am I wrong to spend less time on them?

We might also consider the issues. How do I prioritize the time I spend describing them, and how do I phrase the basic assumptions behind them? I consider global warming a fact in the same way I consider the round earth a fact. Is it fair of me to describe alternative viewpoints as irrational and contrary to evidence?

So even in the simplest possible case, I don't know how to even approach some kind of democratic ideal. The best I can do--and what I do do, in practice--is to qualify as much as possible with caveats. But even then I won't pretend that I'm not trying to win people over to my side, even though that's not even my goal. It's just a side effect based on the fact that I have reasons for holding certain viewpoints.

Expand the problem to hundreds of millions of people and an incredible variety of influencing factors, and it's clear that an ideal can never exist.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

People from relatively conventional backgrounds are not qualified to represent our interests. The "citizen legislator" is a misconceived idea -- we need career politicians just like we need career civil servants, and both sets need to be persons of more than ordinary education, etc. Government is no game for amateurs, it's far too complex for that.

Is being governed a game for amateurs? That is, do you think a people can justly be governed by laws too complex for them to understand?

[Acid Lamp]

In all examples except for 8, the outcome has been subverted in some manner. Sometimes directly, sometimes not. Certain things are easily fixed though. I've long advocated for a "voting week" rather than a single day to ensure the number of voters who turn up is maximized. I've also advocated that we ought to have mandatory voting with an option to "select none" or "abstain" as an option. Things like redistricting and new ID laws should have to be put into effect no later than 6 months before a major election. What is more, the city/state should have to demonstrate to the federal govt. or an outside commission that they are providing adequate resources at all times to service all the affected members of the community.

[PrettyVacant]

Originally Posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

Is being governed a game for amateurs? That is, do you think a people can justly be governed by laws too complex for them to understand?

... you think George Bush ever understood much, either?

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by PrettyVacant

Why would you care?

Because apathy is unaesthetic.

Originally Posted by BigT

you guys seriously think there is no democratic ideal? Really? Of course there is: the ideal is that every person has equal say. The ideal is that everyone is educated on the issues and makes a rational decision. If you have no ideal, you have no concept.

In mild contradiction to what others have said, yes, I actually do hold to a democratic ideal. Alas, it's cynical, and involves careful limitations to preserve us from pure abstract "Perfect Democracy."

The mere intermediary of representation goes a long way. In the ideal, most of us will recognize that we're not competent to legislate, and will voluntarily choose someone with more education to speak for us in the assembly.

As I know myself to be incompetent to serve in Congress, so I know most of my neighbors to be incompetent also.

In some ways, yes, I want Congress to resemble the nation. There should be a fair sample of blacks, Jews, Latinos, women, men, gays, etc. But in other ways, no, I don't want Congress to resemble the nation, and education level is the primary difference!

And, yes, career politicians are a problem, but it's not one that's going to go away, so instead you have to set up systems to get around the problem. The first is to make sure you have multiple party support. . . .

Oops. I agree with the first sentence...and vigorously disagree with the second. I think that a multi-party system would simply bring about an entirely new set of ugly problems. I honestly believe that we would be worse off under such a system; you'd be solving ten old problems...and introducing fifteen new ones!

But, yes, definitely, safeguards are vital, and citizen diligence (in my opinion) is the most important safeguard of all.

[PrettyVacant]

What happens when a 'career politician' fails to be re-elected, does he then become a 'public servant' in some capacity before reverting to a 'career politician' again when he's elected again?

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Originally Posted by PrettyVacant

... you think George Bush ever understood much, either?

I'm not really following where you're going here. For certain, I'm sure Bush didn't understand government and laws any less than the average American, but he certainly wasn't a trained legal expert, either.