= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
prase comments on [Link] Statistically, People Are Not Very Good At Making Voting Decisions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (15)
If you think about voting decisions as an intelligent collective entity making decisions, the question naturally arises : why does the system work at all? Sure, there are massive flaws, but overall the governments of the United States does maintain a powerful military, build and maintain a decent set of roads, keep the mail delivered, care for millions via the VA, etc, etc, etc.
(note : state government is typically selected through even more arbitrary and uninformed votes)
If you think of the masses as a collective with an IQ down in the mentally retarded range, it is difficult to see how this is even possible at all.
There are various theories, of course, but one possibility is that a "bug" in the system is why it even functions. Powerful people in "smoke filled back rooms" decide who the candidates for office that the masses choose between actually are. These people are themselves intelligent and they are selecting intelligent enough decision makers that the system continues to function, more or less. The problems are mostly limited to cases where the powerful people calling the shots collectively make short-sighted decisions, such as sponsoring candidates for office who would rather lower taxes now and allow the roads to go to ruin, and so on.
No, I don't think these powerful people in smoke filled back rooms coordinate with each other very much. This is the difference between this hypothesis and the "conspiracy" hypothesis people create to explain how politics work.
From my personal experience with politics, I'd conclude that people in smoke filled back rooms selecting candidates is mostly a correct description of affairs, although our countries and political habits may differ. (I have participated in three party primaries where all candidates were selected in this way and only later were formally elected by the party members. During the last election, there was an actual smoke filled back room where people discussed things.) On the other hand, I wouldn't thnik that those powerful smokers are intelligent. (Our current district chairman is a moron who doesn't distinguish between Atlantic and Pacific oceans, to say the least. His political skills aren't that abysmal but he is certainly no genius even in this respect. Our local deputy isn't much better.)
I suspect this is less true in the US, where the parties hold primaries which can be competitive if a non-establishment candidate bothers to organize, that's how the Tea Party got many of its candidates on the Republican ticket. On the other hand, in your country it appears to be a lot easier for a new party to become electorally viable.
Yes, in many European countries new parties regularly appear and get their deputies elected to the parliaments (and often they are ideologically similar to the Italian example you have linked to). To me it appears that a single U.S. party corresponds to a group of several related European parties.
Of course, in any system a non-establishment candidate can get elected if he bothers to organise and is able to do it. It still doesn't imply that the voters play significant role in the selection process, it may still be the case that the most important selection happens in the back rooms before the official voting.