I definitely find "Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority" to be apt for all forms of democracy, with 2-party systems and charismatic/populist (elected) leaders to be the worst extreme of this, with multi-party systems improving it piecewise but not perfectly.
The representative nature of the US House/Senate and of Parliaments adds another dimension to the problem while aggravating the underlying problem.
A *direct* democracy (if that is possible) still suffers the "tyranny" problem, I sure don't want to be one of the 49 against the 51 having to do everything "their way" "because majority".
But then Churchill's "worst form of government, except for all the others we've tried to date" still holds me in it's thrall even if my higher self wishes for something better if acutely underspecified.
On 9/3/23 3:47 PM, Sarbajit Roy wrote:
In this context, I would like to share the thoughts of an important world leader (not very popular with successive US governments) on 1 party, 2 party and multi-party systems. I found his (poorly translated) analysis very perceptive even if the alternatives he proposed instead were a bit prosaic. (For the USA substitute Congress / Senate for Parliament)./Parliaments, therefore, have become a means of plundering and usurping the authority of the people. It has thus become the right of the people to struggle, through popular revolution, to destroy such instruments – the so-called parliamentary assemblies which usurp democracy and sovereignty, and which stifle the will of the people. The masses have the right to proclaim reverberantly the new principle: no representationin lieu of the people.////If parliament is formed from one party as a result of its winning an election, it becomes a parliament of the winning party and not of the people. It represents the party and not the people, and the executive power of the parliament becomes that of the victorious party and not of the people. The same is true of the parliament of proportional representation in which eachparty holds a number of seats proportional to their success in the popular vote. The members of the parliament represent their respective parties and not the people, and the power established by such a coalition is the power of the combined parties and not that of the people. Under such systems, the people are the victims whose votes are vied for by exploitative competing factions who dupe the people into political circuses that are outwardly noisy and frantic, but inwardly powerless and irrelevant. Alternatively, the people are seduced into standing in long, apathetic, silent queues to cast their ballots in the same way that they throw waste paper into dustbins. This is the traditional democracy prevalent in the whole world, whether it is represented by a one-party, two-party, multiparty or non-party system. Thus it is clear that representation is a fraud.////Moreover, since the system of elected parliaments is based on propaganda to win votes, it is a demagogic system in thereal sense of the word. Votes can be bought and falsified. Poor //people are unable to compete in the election campaigns, and the result is that only the rich get elected. Assemblies constituted by appointment or hereditary succession do not fall under any form of democracy. /https://ia801507.us.archive.org/4/items/TheGreenBookMuammarGaddafi/gaddafi-green-book.pdf On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 10:31 PM Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote:I'm not an American, but because America plays such a big role in the world, I do follow what's happening over there. With the presidential elections happening next year, I cringe at the prospect that it will be another Trump vs. Biden affair. Can the leader of the world not do better?Pieter - I appreciate the international parallax that Friam (sometimes) offers such as yours here. I'd be interested in a little more of your own analysis based on your personal socio-economic-political position as well as your cultural heritage and of course your geopolitical positioning which is rather unique in the world (South Africa). ChatGPT's perspective is naturally pretty generic/muddy and from a median/centroid POV by it's nature? Regarding Yang and his movement: I was definitely fascinated by his ideas and positioning across the US Democratic party presidential primary (2020)... my personal opinion is that a significant value of presidential primaries is to develop a more diverse/interesting platform than the one in place under (any) current administration. We have just finished watching Netflix's /Borgen/ which I highly recommend as an accessible (and I hope accurate) presentation of how (Northern?) European Parliamentary systems operate. To move from our system to a parliamentary alternative is a much bigger step than anything Yang suggests and therefore likely more inaccessable across the "semi-adjacent possible". Two-Party: I am a big fan of finding a way to expand our degenerate two-party system but am not sure that any specific naive attempt to break it will not have some possibly signfiicant unintended (undesireable) consequences. I *like* the idea of ranked choice voting (as a voter) to be able to more directly express my preferences and in an ideal(ish) world, to achieve a more representative result. A *full* rank-choice allows me to (implicitly) express my never-X-er sentiments which is satisfying (if not particularly meaningful?). I voted for Jill/Green in 2016 because I strongly believed that Blue/Hillary/Dems had a lockin in my state and it was intended to be a combination of "protest" against the Clinton dynasty and the two-party system. It turned out fine but it could have been a bit of complicity accidentally being a "spoiler" vote. Universal Basic: I am very split on this concept. To the extent that I think we are a hyper-wealthy economy (US and the rest of the first world at least) I believe we *can* afford this, and there are good reasons it *might* be a very good idea (up to details). I feel that we do have some precedents in smaller contexts such as the Alaskan Oil&Gas payments and various Native Tribe member-payments. I think our (sometimes) liberal/generous disability and welfare systems might well be partially replaced by a UBI... allowing some of those who might be *gaming* the systems to simply accept the same (or even diminished) level of support as an act of generosity or inclusion by others who are more engaged in the directly productive subsystems/activities. I also think this is a good way to support more "seeking your bliss" (e.g. artists and poets and ... doing their thing with less threshold/resistance) as well as entrepreneurial activiites. A UBI might allow *some* entrepreneurs/innovators to build up more technological/innovational momentum... I *do* believe that the more extreme implementation of communism/socialism give us anecdotal evidence of how it can also go bad. Regarding Term Limits... I'm sympathetic with the idea that sometimes "career politicians" are a real problem/scourge (the alligators in the swamp) but I do appreciate at least a few of the "career" politicians of note (e.g. Sanders, Warren, Whitehouse, even Biden) and loathe a few others (Grassley, McConnell, Thurmond... as I understand the intention/operation of the House/Senate... I think long-tenure Senators make more sense even though some of the fossils in those roles can be acute problems for our process. Open Primaries and Electoral College issues are also important but maybe lost among the other issues. I have not ever voted in a primary because I have never registered in a party (protest primarily against 2-party system and "not wanting to encourage the bastards"). That said I *would* have liked to have thrown down for Bernie in 2016 and 2020 primaries and came close to registering Blue/Dem to do so but ("don't want to encourage the bastards"). I think the Electoral College is a very high profile but idiosyncratic version of the more general problem of Gerrymandering that goes with representative gov/voting. I hope the EC is on it's way out but I suspect the path *to* that elimination is awkward and risk-strewn. The major downsides I consider have a lot to do with "/how do we get there from here?/" and the risk of perturbations having unintended consequences which brings us back to "nudge" theory, encouraging very small, incremental adoptions. I think Yang is *deliberately* naive or over-simplifying and if he were actually given some reins to control this runaway stagecoach of fools that we are, he would be more thoughtful and restrained than implied by some of his more strong proposals (for rhetorical/political purposes). In any case, I think his "voice" has been important as one of the stronger outliers (including Pete Buttegeig, Marianne Williamson and Tulsi Gabbard) and welcome his continued efforts even if they fail to get immediate/direct traction. Ramble, - SteveDuring the primaries of the last election, Andrew Yang intrigued me to no end. He did not make it as a candidate for the Democratic Party and subsequently formed a new party. He is now an outspoken critic of the American political system and has some proposals on how to fix it. To educate myself I asked Bing AI to write three essays: a) One for Andrew Yang's views b) One against it c) Lastly an objective review of the two views above Bing AI answered with: I'm glad you're interested in learning more about Andrew Yang's view on the American political system. I can help you write three essays based on the information I found from the web. Here they are: a) Essay for Andrew Yang's view: Andrew Yang is a former presidential and mayoral candidate who has recently launched a new political party called Forward (or FWD). Yang believes that the American political system is broken and needs to be reformed to reduce polarization, corruption, and dysfunction. He argues that the current two-party system is outdated and does not represent the interests of most Americans, who are increasingly dissatisfied with both Democrats and Republicans. He also claims that the system is rigged by special interests, lobbyists, and wealthy donors who influence the policies and outcomes of elections. Yang's solution is to create a third party that is focused on moving the country forward, rather than left or right. He proposes a set of reforms that he thinks will improve the quality of democracy and governance in the U.S. Some of these reforms include: - Implementing ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, rather than choosing only one. This would encourage more diversity and competition in the political arena, and reduce the spoiler effect and negative campaigning. - Adopting open primaries, which allow voters to participate in any party's primary election, regardless of their affiliation. This would increase voter turnout and engagement, and give more voice and power to independent and moderate voters. - Enacting term limits for Congress, which would limit the number of terms that members of the House and Senate can serve. This would reduce the influence of career politicians and lobbyists, and encourage more fresh and innovative ideas and perspectives. - Creating a universal basic income (UBI), which would provide every American adult with a monthly payment of $1,000, regardless of their income or employment status. This would help alleviate poverty, inequality, and insecurity, and boost the economy and consumer spending. - Reforming the electoral college, which would either abolish or modify the system that determines the winner of presidential elections based on state-level votes, rather than popular votes. This would make every vote count equally, and prevent scenarios where a candidate can win the presidency without winning the majority of votes. Yang believes that these reforms will create a more responsive, representative, and accountable political system that will serve the common good of all Americans. He hopes that his new party will attract voters from across the political spectrum who are looking for a positive and pragmatic alternative to the status quo. b) Essay against Andrew Yang's view: Andrew Yang is a former presidential and mayoral candidate who has recently launched a new political party called Forward (or FWD). Yang claims that the American political system is broken and needs to be reformed to reduce polarization, corruption, and dysfunction. However, his view is misguided and unrealistic for several reasons. First, Yang's diagnosis of the problem is oversimplified and exaggerated. He blames the two-party system for all the ills of American politics, but ignores the fact that there are many other factors that contribute to the challenges facing the country, such as social media, misinformation, cultural differences, economic forces, global events, etc. He also fails to acknowledge the benefits and achievements of the two-party system, such as its stability, adaptability, accountability, and responsiveness to public opinion. Second, Yang's solution is impractical and ineffective. He proposes a set of reforms that he thinks will improve the quality of democracy and governance in the U.S., but does not explain how he will implement them or overcome the resistance from the existing parties and institutions. He also does not address the potential drawbacks and unintended consequences of his reforms, such as: - Ranked-choice voting could lead to more confusion and complexity for voters and election officials, as well as more legal challenges and disputes over vote counting and results. - Open primaries could undermine party cohesion and identity, as well as allow for strategic voting and manipulation by opposing parties or factions. - Term limits for Congress could reduce institutional knowledge and expertise, as well as increase dependence on staff and lobbyists. - Universal basic income could create disincentives for work and productivity, as well as increase government spending and debt. - Reforming the electoral college could weaken federalism and state sovereignty, as well as increase regional polarization and alienation. Yang's new party is unlikely to succeed or make a significant impact on American politics. He faces many obstacles and challenges in building a viable third party that can compete with the established parties, such as fundraising, organizing, recruiting candidates, gaining media attention, attracting voters, etc. He also risks splitting or diluting the vote of his supporters or allies in other parties, which could benefit his opponents or adversaries. Yang's view on the American political system is based on wishful thinking and naive optimism. He does not offer a realistic or effective way to address the complex and multifaceted issues facing the country. c) Objective review of the two views above: Andrew Yang is a former presidential and mayoral candidate who has recently launched a new political party called Forward (or FWD). Yang has a view that the American political system is broken and needs to be reformed to reduce polarization, corruption, and dysfunction. He proposes a set of reforms that he thinks will improve the quality of democracy and governance in the U.S., such as ranked-choice voting, open primaries, term limits for Congress, universal basic income, and reforming the electoral college. He hopes that his new party will attract voters from across the political spectrum who are looking for a positive and pragmatic alternative to the status quo. However, Yang's view is not universally accepted or supported. There are many arguments and counterarguments for and against his view and his reforms. Some of the main points of contention are: - The causes and extent of the problem: Yang blames the two-party system for all the ills of American politics, but others point out that there are many other factors that contribute to the challenges facing the country, such as social media, misinformation, cultural differences, economic forces, global events, etc. They also argue that the two-party system has some benefits and achievements, such as its stability, adaptability, accountability, and responsiveness to public opinion. - The feasibility and effectiveness of the solution: Yang proposes a set of reforms that he thinks will improve the quality of democracy and governance in the U.S., but others question how he will implement them or overcome the resistance from the existing parties and institutions. They also warn of the potential drawbacks and unintended consequences of his reforms, such as confusion, complexity, legal challenges, party fragmentation, strategic voting, loss of institutional knowledge, dependence on staff and lobbyists, disincentives for work, increased government spending and debt, weakened federalism and state sovereignty, increased regional polarization and alienation, etc. - The viability and impact of the new party: Yang hopes that his new party will succeed or make a significant impact on American politics, but others doubt his ability to build a viable third party that can compete with the established parties. They cite the many obstacles and challenges he faces in fundraising, organizing, recruiting candidates, gaining media attention, attracting voters, etc. They also caution that he risks splitting or diluting the vote of his supporters or allies in other parties, which could benefit his opponents or adversaries. In conclusion, Andrew Yang's view on the American political system is a controversial and contentious one. There are pros and cons to his view and his reforms. There are also uncertainties and risks to his new party. The debate over his view is likely to continue as he pursues his political aspirations. Source: Conversation with Bing, 2023/09/03 (1) Andrew Yang's Forward Political Party Views, Explained - Market Realist. https://marketrealist.com/economy-and-politics/andrew-yang-political-party-explained/. (2) What does Andrew Yang believe? Where the candidate stands on 5 issues - PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-andrew-yang-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-5-issues. (3) Andrew Yang’s Disjointed Plan to Reform American Democracy. https://newrepublic.com/article/153888/andrew-yangs-disjointed-plan-reform-american-democracy. (4) Andrew Yang’s Third-Party Aspirations | The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/andrew-yangs-third-party-aspirations. -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
