How to Stop "Re-election" Being the Driving Force of Democracy?

[Kris]

In regards to the comments about compulsory voting, I would think making voting day a national holiday would drastically improve voter turnout without firing up the free speech crowd. Also, ranked voting would be a great way of at least making a dent in the 2 party system.

Speaking for myself, I'd like to see postal voting, making Election Day a holiday, making it easier to register, etc.  I see no purpose in making voting more difficult than necessary.   My opinion is that you shouldn't want to vote in the first place. A system that makes it easier to vote also makes it a lot harder to plausibly argue that the reason why participation rates are abysmal is because voting is somehow difficult.  It really isn't.  The reason why nonvoters don't vote is because they don't want to.

There are lots of reasons non-voters don’t vote other than that they don’t want to.

[Buffaloski Boris]

In regards to the comments about compulsory voting, I would think making voting day a national holiday would drastically improve voter turnout without firing up the free speech crowd. Also, ranked voting would be a great way of at least making a dent in the 2 party system.

Speaking for myself, I'd like to see postal voting, making Election Day a holiday, making it easier to register, etc.  I see no purpose in making voting more difficult than necessary.   My opinion is that you shouldn't want to vote in the first place. A system that makes it easier to vote also makes it a lot harder to plausibly argue that the reason why participation rates are abysmal is because voting is somehow difficult.  It really isn't.  The reason why nonvoters don't vote is because they don't want to.

There are lots of reasons non-voters don’t vote other than that they don’t want to.

Of course there are other reasons.  People get sick.  They're in the hospital. They're in prison. They don't speak the language.  Ad infinitum. Not wanting to vote is the number one reason people don't show up, contrary to a lot of propaganda circulating out there.

[Kris]

In regards to the comments about compulsory voting, I would think making voting day a national holiday would drastically improve voter turnout without firing up the free speech crowd. Also, ranked voting would be a great way of at least making a dent in the 2 party system.

Speaking for myself, I'd like to see postal voting, making Election Day a holiday, making it easier to register, etc.  I see no purpose in making voting more difficult than necessary.   My opinion is that you shouldn't want to vote in the first place. A system that makes it easier to vote also makes it a lot harder to plausibly argue that the reason why participation rates are abysmal is because voting is somehow difficult.  It really isn't.  The reason why nonvoters don't vote is because they don't want to.

There are lots of reasons non-voters don’t vote other than that they don’t want to.

Of course there are other reasons.  People get sick.  They're in the hospital. They're in prison. They don't speak the language.  Ad infinitum. Not wanting to vote is the number one reason people don't show up, contrary to a lot of propaganda circulating out there.

Of course it is, and I’m not sure anyone would actually argue otherwise.

That doesn’t mean that fighting for the right of everyone to vote is not important.

[RetiredAt63]

https://www.thoughtco.com/more-likely-vote-women-or-men-3534271

Maybe women value their vote more since they had to work more to get it?

[Kris]

https://www.thoughtco.com/more-likely-vote-women-or-men-3534271

Maybe women value their vote more since they had to work more to get it?

Yeah, white dudes can’t imagine a scenario/world where they wouldn’t be able to.

Easy to be blasé, I guess.

[jinga nation]

Anyone registered for selective service is entered into a national lottery. They get elected at local, state, federal level to represent. Seerve your term, then go back home; guarantee the representive gets to keep their job if they were previously employed. This removes term limits. This also removes the need for lobbyists for election money.
Anyone between the ages of 16 and 67 gets elected. Since 67 is the retirement age, anyone 67+0day on the representing lottery day is null and void. Retirement means you don't work anymore, including representing your local/state.

[GuitarStv]

https://www.thoughtco.com/more-likely-vote-women-or-men-3534271

Maybe women value their vote more since they had to work more to get it?

Yeah, white dudes can’t imagine a scenario/world where they wouldn’t be able to.

Easy to be blasé, I guess.

Actually, I can imagine several that are likely to happen after the US finishes imploding and China takes over.

[LennStar]

Anyone registered for selective service is entered into a national lottery. They get elected at local, state, federal level to represent. Seerve your term, then go back home; guarantee the representive gets to keep their job if they were previously employed. This removes term limits. This also removes the need for lobbyists for election money.
Anyone between the ages of 16 and 67 gets elected. Since 67 is the retirement age, anyone 67+0day on the representing lottery day is null and void. Retirement means you don't work anymore, including representing your local/state.

You forgot that all assets have to be sold to the state and bought back later for the same price. If the state makes a profit, they make one, too. If the state loses, they lose too. Of course the tax rate is fixed.

That is how they did it once in old Athens.

[Milkshake]

btw. Am I the only one that had to laugh at the "how to get rid of Democracy in Democracy" question?

The posed question wasn't "How do we stop elections?". It was "How do we stop re-election being the sole focus of most politicians to the exclusion of all other things?" Sorry if that wasn't clearly explained in the original post.

If Democracy to you is focusing all resources on getting re-elected, without regard for doing what the people elected you to do, then I fear very much for living in your definition of "Democracy".

In a perfect world everyone would vote and the votes would count equally and how much money a candidate has wouldn't matter. We don't live there. Those of us not in fantasyland are considering ways to fix the current wildly inefficient system, both in ways that are realistically achievable and in ways that are more ideological in nature.

[LennStar]

btw. Am I the only one that had to laugh at the "how to get rid of Democracy in Democracy" question?

The posed question wasn't "How do we stop elections?". It was "How do we stop re-election being the sole focus of most politicians to the exclusion of all other things?" Sorry if that wasn't clearly explained in the original post.

If Democracy to you is focusing all resources on getting re-elected, without regard for doing what the people elected you to do, then I fear very much for living in your definition of "Democracy".

I think you sinply don't understand what Democracy is.
Democracy is the buying of votes through public policies (or at least promising it). If you take it out, you no longer have democracy.

A politician (tries to) enacts those policies that buys him the votes (or he is indebted to enact by election promises). Because if he doesn't he not only is out, but also cannot enact those policies he wants personally.
And the most efficient way is to buy as many votes he needs for the lowest amount of money. That is why "parties for the rich" don't enact things that would profit poor people, even if they totally agree that it would be a good policy.

[ender]

Also, how is ranking the candidates is different from the person with the most votes winning?

The answer to this question is the answer to this thread imo. It is Single Transferable Voting, vs winner takes all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

Practically speaking, it means the dominance of the two-party system will steadily decrease over time as people understand how STV voting works.

Right now, one of the biggest drawbacks that contributes to politicians constantly campaigning for reelection is the entire process is binary. You are republican or democrat, or statistically your vote even in aggregate doesn't matter (I say this as someone who often votes 3rd party). This causes most political discussions to vbe framed less in the positive but more in the negative. The 2016 US presidential election was in many ways "against Trump" and "against Clinton" instead of positive framing.

By minimizing this, over time 3rd party candidates start to matter. The reason this is relevant is that when it's a two-party system, the quality of ideas matter significantly less than the ability to attack the opposing party ideas. You don't have to actually have cohesive plans/anything, you just have to convince enough people that the other parties ideas are bad. This is a negative cycle rather than a positive cycle.

Realistically, the way you stop reelection being the focus is you make the positive ideas the focus. I do not particularly care if reelection is a driving force, if that results in politicians trying to enact policies which are actually beneficial by themselves. The problem is when it's reactionary. A great example is "Obamacare." This was something Obama's administration enacted and now for a lot of years the push has been to repeal it... much more to "repeal" than "replace" and so the conversation centers around the negative, not a positive.

Leveling the playing field from just Democrat/Republicans being viable options over time means the focus will necessarily shift towards a more positive environment where ideas are validated on their own merit and not based on their ability to counter the other side.


ah, who am I kidding, this is all a pipe dream because the American media/public love feeding on negativity porn and reading actual proposals and ideas for their own merit will never happen. And negative advertising works way better anyways.

[boy_bye]

In regards to the comments about compulsory voting, I would think making voting day a national holiday would drastically improve voter turnout without firing up the free speech crowd. Also, ranked voting would be a great way of at least making a dent in the 2 party system.

Speaking for myself, I'd like to see postal voting, making Election Day a holiday, making it easier to register, etc.  I see no purpose in making voting more difficult than necessary.   My opinion is that you shouldn't want to vote in the first place. A system that makes it easier to vote also makes it a lot harder to plausibly argue that the reason why participation rates are abysmal is because voting is somehow difficult.  It really isn't.  The reason why nonvoters don't vote is because they don't want to.

There are lots of reasons non-voters don’t vote other than that they don’t want to.

Of course there are other reasons.  People get sick.  They're in the hospital. They're in prison. They don't speak the language.  Ad infinitum. Not wanting to vote is the number one reason people don't show up, contrary to a lot of propaganda circulating out there.

Of course it is, and I’m not sure anyone would actually argue otherwise.

That doesn’t mean that fighting for the right of everyone to vote is not important.

Do you have data on this?


Because voter suppression is a very real thing, outside of being in the hospital / not speaking the language / etc -- much more real than voter fraud. Many states have historically been so conspicuously craven about denying black people the vote that there had to be a law to require those states to run all voting rules changes by an independent commission who could determine whether the changes would have an impact on black folks' ability to vote before they could go forward. Nothing short of us could stop the states from disenfranchising their black citizens.

This law was called the Voting Rights Act and if anyone thinks shit like this doesn't impact whether people are able to vote or not, I invite them to read this book. My jaw dropped even in the first chapter. I mean I knew some stuff about this but the extent of it and the ruthlessness of state governments is shocking.

In related news, 2016 was the first election since the 60s that did not have the protections of the Voting Rights Act and we see what happened there.

[Buffaloski Boris]

In regards to the comments about compulsory voting, I would think making voting day a national holiday would drastically improve voter turnout without firing up the free speech crowd. Also, ranked voting would be a great way of at least making a dent in the 2 party system.

Speaking for myself, I'd like to see postal voting, making Election Day a holiday, making it easier to register, etc.  I see no purpose in making voting more difficult than necessary.   My opinion is that you shouldn't want to vote in the first place. A system that makes it easier to vote also makes it a lot harder to plausibly argue that the reason why participation rates are abysmal is because voting is somehow difficult.  It really isn't.  The reason why nonvoters don't vote is because they don't want to.

There are lots of reasons non-voters don’t vote other than that they don’t want to.

Of course there are other reasons.  People get sick.  They're in the hospital. They're in prison. They don't speak the language.  Ad infinitum. Not wanting to vote is the number one reason people don't show up, contrary to a lot of propaganda circulating out there.

Of course it is, and I’m not sure anyone would actually argue otherwise.

That doesn’t mean that fighting for the right of everyone to vote is not important.

Do you have data on this?


Because voter suppression is a very real thing, outside of being in the hospital / not speaking the language / etc -- much more real than voter fraud. Many states have historically been so conspicuously craven about denying black people the vote that there had to be a law to require those states to run all voting rules changes by an independent commission who could determine whether the changes would have an impact on black folks' ability to vote before they could go forward. Nothing short of us could stop the states from disenfranchising their black citizens.

This law was called the Voting Rights Act and if anyone thinks shit like this doesn't impact whether people are able to vote or not, I invite them to read this book. My jaw dropped even in the first chapter. I mean I knew some stuff about this but the extent of it and the ruthlessness of state governments is shocking.

In related news, 2016 was the first election since the 60s that did not have the protections of the Voting Rights Act and we see what happened there.

Here is a study by Pew research. This is people who were registered to vote who didn't vote. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/dislike-of-candidates-or-campaign-issues-was-most-common-reason-for-not-voting-in-2016/ft_17-06-01_nonvoters_allreasons/

This is a study by Pew regarding why people don't register to vote.  Note the title for figure 2 "Lack of Interest Is the Most Common Reason That Eligible Citizens Are Unregistered":

https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2017/06/ei_why_are_millions_of_citizens_not_registered_to_vote.pdf

As I noted above, I would like to see voting made as easy as possible. Much as I think that voting is a waste of time, I don't see any point in making it more difficult.  A side-benefit is that we might finally get rid of the myth that people who don't vote are doing so because they're being denied the ability.  Then again, who am I kidding?  The politically obsessed won't be happy until everybody they can find is rounded up and marched to the polls under penalty of imprisonment.  They'll call it "freedom" no doubt.     

[js82]

The other choice of focusing on accomplishing good ends in society, while the road less traveled, does offer certain advantages. First off, you don’t have to spend a lot of time listening to the talking heads of the partisan media. That’ll drop your stress level right there. There is also the benefit of being able to focus on things you’re really interested in rather than a whole platform of unrelated issues. And then there is the thrill of being able to accomplish some small things. It might not be the huge, sexy things like a carbon tax that you’ll never see. But riding my bike and composting and cleaning up the local river does offer some immediate tangible results and satisfaction. Speaking for myself, I’ll take the road less traveled.

Out of curiosity - from a position of being apolitical, how do you regard issues that really require large-scale(at more than a local community level) collective action to move the needle? Are you simply accepting these as things beyond your control?  Or is there another way you feel we can achieve the macro-level organization needed tackle those issues as a society without engaging in our current form of politics?

Here, I'm thinking of things like(but not limited to) air/water pollution, climate, pandemic response - issues where actions in one location can ripple to impact those a significant distance away, and where large-scale cooperation is necessary to thoroughly tackle the problem.

Genuinely curious on your thoughts here.

[Buffaloski Boris]

The other choice of focusing on accomplishing good ends in society, while the road less traveled, does offer certain advantages. First off, you don’t have to spend a lot of time listening to the talking heads of the partisan media. That’ll drop your stress level right there. There is also the benefit of being able to focus on things you’re really interested in rather than a whole platform of unrelated issues. And then there is the thrill of being able to accomplish some small things. It might not be the huge, sexy things like a carbon tax that you’ll never see. But riding my bike and composting and cleaning up the local river does offer some immediate tangible results and satisfaction. Speaking for myself, I’ll take the road less traveled.

Out of curiosity - from a position of being apolitical, how do you regard issues that really require large-scale(at more than a local community level) collective action to move the needle? Are you simply accepting these as things beyond your control?  Or is there another way you feel we can achieve the macro-level organization needed tackle those issues as a society without engaging in our current form of politics?

Here, I'm thinking of things like(but not limited to) air/water pollution, climate, pandemic response - issues where actions in one location can ripple to impact those a significant distance away, and where large-scale cooperation is necessary to thoroughly tackle the problem.

Genuinely curious on your thoughts here.

Sure. I don’t have a manifesto or anything like that, but I’ll provide some thoughts.

I’m not an anarchist or even close. I don’t have a problem with state action per se to accomplish X set of objectives. Where I think I differ is in that I don’t much care about the process of how the political leadership is selected. The differences in the major political factions in the US are in my view minimal, and the idea that my single vote in the 100+ millions cast will make any difference in the makeup of that political leadership is preposterous. I see no point in taking time to decide which faction is more or less awful. As I noted above I prefer the hyper local, the things I might be able to affect, rather than those I don’t. It’s pretty liberating in truth.  Once you stop focusing on big, unlikely-to-be-solved dilemmas, actual solutions to manageable problems become more apparent.

To the extent that I try to influence the “big” issues it’s strictly through private means. I’d rather throw time and money to the Nature Conservancy than spend time or money on environmental politics. I’d much rather volunteer with unions than try to change work laws through politics. I think the results are more apparent and the cost/benefit relationship is much more favorable.

ETA: I should add that even if I thought that voting and electoral politics worked, and I definitely don’t, I would still refrain from involvement.  I have a problem with using the ballot or politics to force other people to comply with my views. Might doesn’t make right, so why should I be a contributor  to that?  No thanks.

[Kyle Schuant]

Implicit in your comment is the assumption that large-scale top-down actions are more effective, or even in many cases the only possible solution. This is not necessarily a good assumption.

There are two relevant observations here. The first is Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy, which is that in any large bureaucratic organisation (government or private) there will be two types of people: those dedicated to the stated aims of the organisation, and those dedicated to the organisation itself; the second type of people will come to dominate and make the rules.

And so you get the Catholic church with people doing charitable works, and with archbishops moving paedophile priests around to help them evade justice, or you get NASA engineers helping put a square box in a round hole to get Apollo XIII home, and you also get the Space Shuttle. From this we can see that large bureaucratic organisations will not effect useful solutions - at least a generation after the organisation was formed.

The second is that of Tainter's https://www.bookdepository.com/The-Collapse-of-Complex-Societies/9780521386739]The Collapse of Complex Societies, which is that as societies encounter problems, they develop systems to deal with these problems, but the systems themselves have problems, so they develop systems to deal with those problems, and so the systems then have diminishing and eventually negative returns.

If you've seen The Wire, you may remember the scene with the Desk Problem. This is a wonderful scene because it illustrates the way people can all be sincerely trying to help - but actually hinder each-other because they've not communicated well with each-other, and not agreed on a common goal. The Desk Problem is essentially what happened with the CDC and FDA in the US earlier this year, but it's happened many times before in government and corporations, and it explains why everything has become more expensive and takes so long to do.

More broadly, you are falling into the trap of imagining government as leaders. In a democracy, government does not lead, it follows - reluctantly. Things like the Civil Rights Act didn't pop up out of nowhere, they came after a large chunk of the population marched for it, and behaved as if it were already passed. And so, people acting as individuals and within their communities will effect more useful change than waiting for large top-down solutions.

[LennStar]

Here is a study by Pew research. This is people who were registered to vote who didn't vote. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/dislike-of-candidates-or-campaign-issues-was-most-common-reason-for-not-voting-in-2016/ft_17-06-01_nonvoters_allreasons/

This is a study by Pew regarding why people don't register to vote.  Note the title for figure 2 "Lack of Interest Is the Most Common Reason That Eligible Citizens Are Unregistered":

https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2017/06/ei_why_are_millions_of_citizens_not_registered_to_vote.pdf

As I noted above, I would like to see voting made as easy as possible. Much as I think that voting is a waste of time, I don't see any point in making it more difficult.  A side-benefit is that we might finally get rid of the myth that people who don't vote are doing so because they're being denied the ability.  Then again, who am I kidding?  The politically obsessed won't be happy until everybody they can find is rounded up and marched to the polls under penalty of imprisonment.  They'll call it "freedom" no doubt.   

Okay, lets look into it. Registered Voters:

The biggest single reason is they don't like the options - which is something that in part is also "made hart" by the type of campaigning.
But the main reason, if you add up, is 37% for "too difficult".

And for registration - only the things I see in the graph - it's 21% too difficult/inconvenient 11% data protection issues (which could be seen as too difficult) and the rest is "nothing appealing".

Basically the reasons are 1/4-1/3 too difficult and 2/3 the options.

Now, 1/3 is quite a lot in my eyes (although there will always be people who find it too difficult to even make one check).
And part of the lack of choices is also "intentionally too difficult" by the type of your voting system.

Which amounts to roughly 50% of non voters who are hindered by things that make it too difficult for them. You don't need to be obsessed to find that too much, do you?

[Leisured]

I too applaud Kyle Schuant's excellent posts, 51 and 54.

All I want to add is that in 1982, in Tasmania Australia, there was a referendum on building one or two new dams. There was no provision for a 'No Dams' vote, so anti dam activists advised their supporters to write 'No Dams' across their ballot papers. This was known as an 'informal vote', that is not counted, but it attracted attention because 33% of voters wrote 'No Dams'.

https://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/tpl/InfoSheets/referendums.htm

[Buffaloski Boris]

I too applaud Kyle Schuant's excellent posts, 51 and 54.

All I want to add is that in 1982, in Tasmania Australia, there was a referendum on building one or two new dams. There was no provision for a 'No Dams' vote, so anti dam activists advised their supporters to write 'No Dams' across their ballot papers. This was known as an 'informal vote', that is not counted, but it attracted attention because 33% of voters wrote 'No Dams'.

https://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/tpl/InfoSheets/referendums.htm

I agree. @Kyle Schuant has been on a roll. Good stuff.

I wanted to comment on the second part of the post regarding the dam projects. I find it interesting and telling that the only options on that ballot were a dam and more dams. It’s a way of segueing into a larger theme: why politicians, including those of autocratic regimes, want elections on the first place. We in the West seem to want to view elections as some sort of pinnacle of liberal democracy. Yet autocratic regimes the world over have elections as well. There are elections in North Korea and China.  The Soviet Union had elections. Nazi Germany had plebiscites. So why would leaders of autocratic regimes the world over go to the bother of holding elections? Clearly they see some advantage in doing so. It could be in the mustering of the people to show up. That seems to be part of the reason in North Korea. I think in most instances though it’s to have a show of support for those in power and their policies.

So what was the point of a referendum in which the only choices were dams? What is the point of elections where the only choices are one or two corrupt factions?

[Kyle Schuant]

Once again, to understand why DPRK holds elections and why things are as they are in democracies, I must recommend The Dictator's Handbook. Every leader to remain in power must reward and please their supporters. The only difference between DPRK and (say) Sweden is how many people they have to please - and that makes all the difference.

In every country, in terms of deciding who runs the country there are four groups:
- the irrelevant - usually, people in prison, the homeless, the mentally ill, illegal immigrants, etc. You can safely ignore their wishes
- interchangeables - the mass of people, you need half of them to support you, but which particular half doesn't matter. If Anna stops voting for you but Bob starts, nothing's changed for you, and anyway you don't know Anna from Bob. In most countries this is the general citizenry
- influentials - the people whose support helps, but isn't essential, so long as they don't all hate you. This is things like state leaders in a federal system, and significant lobby groups like the NRA, or newspapers like the New York Times.
- essentials - the people without whom you just can't get or keep power. In a Third World dictatorship this might be Generals, in Australia it's Rupert Murdoch.

Now, obviously members of each group will tend to want to enter the next group, or at least not drop down a level of importance. Citizens will form lobby groups (interchangeables trying to become influential). Larger newspaper and TV channels will seek media deregulation laws - so they can absorb other newspaper and TV channels and become media conglomerates (influential trying to become essential) - and the smaller ones with no hope of doing that will be against deregulation, since they'll be the ones absorbed.

Leaders, for their part, will try to reduce the number in each group. The more members of each group the harder it is to negotiate with and please them all. You can't talk to and please 1,000,000 owners of $1 million businesses - but you can talk to and please 10 owners of $100 billion companies. Time for some deregulation, and some extra bureaucracy and forms to fill out - er, I mean, "National Standards" - which won't bother a $100 billion company, but that corner store? Yeah that's gone. Reduce the number of essentials and influentials!

And that electorate with mixed demographics... okay, to get their vote, I need policies which make middle-class white people happy, and rural working class poor... at the same time... hmmm... now, if I just redraw the electoral boundaries... ah, that's better! Now I can ignore those poor! Wait, the rural poor are concentrated in that electorate and keep voting against me? Well, you know what, voter fraud could be a problem... I mean, it isn't a problem, but it could be! Let's bring in some voter ID laws! What kind of ID? Well, what kind do those rural poor carry? Not that kind! Reduce the number of interchangeables!

Now, once I've got the number of essentials, influentials and interchangeables down to a manageable number... what do I do? Well, keep rewarding them, obviously! Cash handouts, tax breaks, drop or ignore environmental laws, welfare, childcare subsidies, all that. But still, some other bastard might come along and promise them more. "If there is going to be class warfare in this country, it’s time that the working class of this country won that war and not just the corporate elite." - Bernie Sanders, promising the interchangeables that they can become influential.

How can you deal with this? Well, one way is to keep the various groups fighting amongst themselves. How can the white middle class stop all those poor blacks, hispanics and whites from getting together? Hmmm.... well, they're united by their poverty, but... you know, blacks are a bit more homophobic than whites, so... time for a rainbow flag! and those poor hispanics? "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." - Donald Trump, telling the interchangeables that they should hate other interchangeables.

Now, having them fighting amongst themselves works pretty well. But remember too that each group would ideally like to move up a level, like Bernie promised. Now, can you structure things so they're constantly trying to go up a level, and stop them dropping down a level? Well, of course! It's called representative democracy!

If you have representative democracy, then the interchangeables have some hope of becoming influential - getting elected to parliament. And the guys in parliament want to stay there (not become interchangeable again), and in a parliamentary system, those influential MPs might become essential Cabinet members. As for the Cabinet members, the only way further up is actually becoming Prime Minister. Well, the PM's not keen on that, what to do? Cabinet reshuffle! Why do you think Drumpf keeps tossing people out of his Cabinet? He's reminding his essential supporters - you're not essential.

And that's the other thing the leader can do, as well as promote people a level, drop them down. "Drain the swamp!" said Trump. Does he means... have no influential class at all? Of course not! He wanted to replace the currently influential people with his influential people! If you keep shuffling them around between classes, then you remind them who's boss, and you keep them busy bribing and backstabbing each-other.

And this is why DPRK has elections. In each election, some of the interchangeable citizenry become influential, entering the rubber-stamp Supreme People's Assembly, and some of the influential ones return to being interchangeable. And some of the members of the Supreme People's Assembly enter the Cabinet, so that some influential ones become essential, and some essential ones return to being merely influential. There are 687 members of the Supreme People's Assembly, do you think the Dear Leader has any clue who most of them are? Of course not! So they have to decide among themselves who to kick out and who to let in.

The DPRK elections serve the purpose of shuffling people between one class and another, and keeping each class busy bribing and backstabbing each-other. Each election reminds the essential that they might not always be essential.

Of course the other aspect is that any citizen can dob in another citizen for non-Party thoughts and off he goes to the gulag. Which is to say, even the lowliest of interchangeables can make someone else irrelevant. Which makes informing a kind of voting, really.

[Kyle Schuant]

All that sounds very cynical and depressing, I know. But the aim of the public must be to increase the number of interchangeables, and minimise the power of the essentials.


Think of it this way: if I run a city of 100,000 people giving me $100 million in revenue, with a dictatorship I just need 100 guys with AK-47s and everyone else unarmed and I can run things as I wish - I can give each of those 100 guys $500,000 - it's not hard to find 1 man in 1,000 who'll shoot unarmed protestors for $500k - those 100 guys are essential to my rule. That then leaves me $50 million for the public good or to sock away in my Cayman Islands account, depending on my nature. Of course if I spend $50 million on the public good then someone has to be in charge of those projects and he... becomes influential, maybe even essential. Hmmm. Easier to put it in my bank account. Things aren't looking good for those 99,900 other people.


Now, if my city's a democracy, if I just give $500k to 100 people and keep the rest for myself, I'm definitely out the next election. I need the support not of 100 people, but of 50,001 of those people to stay in power. I could just give them $2,000 each, but since they already paid $1,000 in tax they're only $1,000 better off so they might not be that impressed by that, who knows which way they'll vote. It's probably easier if I take that $100 million and spend it on public projects, schools and roads and things. I'll end up with some influential people but the interchangeables will mostly like me.


Obviously I can do the things we talked about before, gerrymandering and reducing the franchise, or rewriting the constitution to reduce the powers of the council of the 100,000, that sort of thing. And then I just start spending on a few, to hell with the rest of them.


For the public good, then, we want to increase the franchise, and have as many people as possible involved in things. You know how you get people saying, "well, people who didn't even finish high school, why should they be able to vote? they're too stupid." This is just a variation on denying ethnic minorities the vote and all that. It's just people trying to reduce the numbers of interchangeables, or whichever group they're in - Cabinet members all agree there should be a smaller Cabinet! - to increase their own relative importance and thus rewards. Ignore all that shit, then.


Much the same applies to corporations. Excessive CEO pay? No amount of legislation will change this - they pay lawyers thousands of dollars a day to find loopholes in it to get another way to get the sweet, sweet moolah! But imagine... shareholders... no more proxy vote... and shareholder meetings can only pass any remuneration with a quorom of 2/3 of shares... hmmm... watch that CEO pay drop like a stone.


Increasing participation in an organisation or government evens out the rewards. Reducing it concentrates them.

[LennStar]

We should open a club "Mustachian Dictator". Would make for some interesting articles that name ;)

[Kyle Schuant]

In the US they clear out a peaceful protest so the head of government can have a photo op. In Australia, a homeowner can tell the head of government to get off his lawn.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2020/jun/04/get-off-my-lawn-homeowner-interrupts-scott-morrisons-homebuilding-grants-announcement-video

And this is why you don't want a presidential republic. You don't want any one person to be that important.