What would be a more preferable form of government than a "democracy"?

[Night FM]

My thought is that, hypothetically, if a form of government were able to meet people's needs and protect people's rights on par with or better than a democratic system of government, then the "structure" of government itself would be irrelevant. Democratic governments aren't an end in and of themselves, but a means for meeting such needs. In practice, though, certain types of governments (e.x. totalitarian states) have a well-recognized reputation of violating human rights - and it may be likely that even the worst dictators imagine themselves to be "benevolent dictators" in the likeness of Plato's Republic.

In pure theory, though, what would a superior form of government be assuming that it sufficiently met everyone's needs (e.x. preventing racial discrimination) and was sustainable (e.x. meaning that it wouldn't be prone to corruption or consolidation of power in the hands of a dictator or corrupt elite)?

[TheVat]

Even democracy is prone to what de Tocqueville described as "the tyranny of the majority."  Perhaps there could be forms of direct government (as opposed to representative government) like anarcho syndicalism which could be developed into systems where divergent minority groups could (within reason - i.e. not abusing basic human rights in their cohort or poisoning the river) pursue their own lifestyle without interference from an outside majority.  DK, you might need some Plato type philosophical advisors in key positions where they could help maintain guardrails.  I don't think there's any escaping the need for some set of democratic norms, e.g. to prevent unscrupulous philosopher-advisors from acquiring power and corrupting such a system.

[iNow]

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

In pure theory, though, what would a superior form of government be assuming that it sufficiently met everyone's needs

There is no guarantee that a system with multiple variables can have all of them optimized. Some variables are not independent, so optimizing one means another can’t be.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

what would a superior form of government

Obviously, it’s the one where my own preferences are prioritized above everyone else’s. 😂 

[MigL]

No Government would be ideal.
If people were considerate, compassionate, productive, and got along.

Unfortunately we are not 'grown up' enough nad need a 'mother' to ntell us how to get along and take care of us.

[MSC]

I'd argue that it is too soon to be talking about some new form of government when we haven't even figured out how to create equitable voting systems. Looking at you first past the post voting and the electoral college! Rated choice voting is my preference.

[iNow]

12 hours ago, MSC said:

Rated choice voting is my preference.

Ditto, though we call it ranked choice voting (only in use in a few precincts) 

[MSC]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Ditto, though we call it ranked choice voting (only in use in a few precincts) 

Ranked choice voting and rated choice voting aren't the same thing. Ranked choice is better than fptp but rated choice is allegedly better than ranked choice, if I understand the theory correctly as it avoids specific problems that can arise in rated choice and fptp.

 

This video explains the differences, just have some coffee beforehand as it gets complicated when it starts to explain the pitfalls of the different voting systems!

 

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, MSC said:

just have some coffee beforehand as it gets complicated

Thanks. I prompted Llama 3.1 for a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of each instead:

 

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and Rated Choice Voting (also known as Score Voting) are two alternative voting systems. Here's a comparison of their benefits and weaknesses:

*Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)*

Benefits:

1. Encourages civil campaigns: Candidates are incentivized to appeal broadly.
2. Reduces strategic voting: Voters can rank candidates sincerely.
3. Promotes majority support: Winners often have majority support.
4. Minimizes spoilers: Third-party candidates don't split votes.
5. Simple to understand: Rank candidates 1, 2, 3, etc.

Weaknesses:

1. Complexity in implementation: Requires specialized software.
2. Difficulty in counting: Multiple rounds of counting.
3. Potential for exhausted ballots: Voters may not rank all candidates.
4. Limited expression: Voters can only rank, not express nuance.

*Rated Choice Voting (Score Voting)*

Benefits:

1. Expressive voting: Voters rate candidates 0-10 (or other scales).
2. Nuanced preferences: Voters can express subtle differences.
3. No strategic voting: Voters score sincerely.
4. Simple counting: Scores are summed.
5. Flexible scale: Allows for varied rating systems.

Weaknesses:

1. Cognitive burden: Voters must consider multiple candidates.
2. Inconsistent scales: Voters may use different scales.
3. Tactical voting: Voters may strategically score.
4. Potential for lowest-common-denominator winners.

*Key differences:*

1. Expression: RCV uses ranking, while Score Voting uses ratings.
2. Counting: RCV requires multiple rounds, while Score Voting sums scores.
3. Nuance: Score Voting allows for more nuanced expressions.

*Hybrid approaches:*

1. Mixed-member proportional representation (MMPR)
2. Instant-runoff voting (IRV) with rated ballots
3. Proportional ranked-choice voting

*Real-world examples:*

RCV:

- Maine (USA)
- San Francisco (USA)
- Australia (national elections)
- New Zealand (local elections)

Score Voting:

- None widely implemented, but used in some organizational elections.

[MSC]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Thanks. I prompted Llama 3.1 for a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of each instead:

 

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and Rated Choice Voting (also known as Score Voting) are two alternative voting systems. Here's a comparison of their benefits and weaknesses:

*Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)*

Benefits:

1. Encourages civil campaigns: Candidates are incentivized to appeal broadly.
2. Reduces strategic voting: Voters can rank candidates sincerely.
3. Promotes majority support: Winners often have majority support.
4. Minimizes spoilers: Third-party candidates don't split votes.
5. Simple to understand: Rank candidates 1, 2, 3, etc.

Weaknesses:

1. Complexity in implementation: Requires specialized software.
2. Difficulty in counting: Multiple rounds of counting.
3. Potential for exhausted ballots: Voters may not rank all candidates.
4. Limited expression: Voters can only rank, not express nuance.

*Rated Choice Voting (Score Voting)*

Benefits:

1. Expressive voting: Voters rate candidates 0-10 (or other scales).
2. Nuanced preferences: Voters can express subtle differences.
3. No strategic voting: Voters score sincerely.
4. Simple counting: Scores are summed.
5. Flexible scale: Allows for varied rating systems.

Weaknesses:

1. Cognitive burden: Voters must consider multiple candidates.
2. Inconsistent scales: Voters may use different scales.
3. Tactical voting: Voters may strategically score.
4. Potential for lowest-common-denominator winners.

*Key differences:*

1. Expression: RCV uses ranking, while Score Voting uses ratings.
2. Counting: RCV requires multiple rounds, while Score Voting sums scores.
3. Nuance: Score Voting allows for more nuanced expressions.

*Hybrid approaches:*

1. Mixed-member proportional representation (MMPR)
2. Instant-runoff voting (IRV) with rated ballots
3. Proportional ranked-choice voting

*Real-world examples:*

RCV:

- Maine (USA)
- San Francisco (USA)
- Australia (national elections)
- New Zealand (local elections)

Score Voting:

- None widely implemented, but used in some organizational elections.

Great summary! Thanks for sharing! It should be noted also that it is thought that rated choice voting would also have the benefit of encouraging civil campaigns and it avoids pivotal voter issues in RCV, rooted in mathematics, that can potentially still lead to minority rule or unfavourable candidates still winning elections without having a majority first choice position. 

Unfortunately though, public awareness of the choices is about 70 years behind the academic literature on this, as reflected in that RCV has not got many real world examples and SV has even less. 

There is also the massive hurdle of maintaining trust in elections while switching to a new style of voting. Particularly voting types that are more complex than first past the post. Lay people gravitate toward simplicity and in trying to convince others to switch, you also have to convince them they've been doing it wrong for a long time. In a 2 party dominated system this difficulty is increased as at any one time close to half of the electorate will have gotten their way in the last election anyway and so will see less need for change. 

Something that could at least blunt the effects of the electoral college though, sooner rather than later, is the national popular vote interstate compact (NPVIC). A number of states have currently already signed on to this, but if enough of them did, the EC would become completely toothless. This is a pact between states to award all of their electoral college votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote in all 50 states. 

[dimreepr]

On 9/15/2024 at 2:11 PM, Night FM said:

My thought is that, hypothetically, if a form of government were able to meet people's needs and protect people's rights on par with or better than a democratic system of government, then the "structure" of government itself would be irrelevant. Democratic governments aren't an end in and of themselves, but a means for meeting such needs. In practice, though, certain types of governments (e.x. totalitarian states) have a well-recognized reputation of violating human rights - and it may be likely that even the worst dictators imagine themselves to be "benevolent dictators" in the likeness of Plato's Republic.

In pure theory, though, what would a superior form of government be assuming that it sufficiently met everyone's needs (e.x. preventing racial discrimination) and was sustainable (e.x. meaning that it wouldn't be prone to corruption or consolidation of power in the hands of a dictator or corrupt elite)?

We haven't tried democracy yet, we keep excluding people from voting both directly and passively.

Give 'everyone' (regardless of age and capacity) a pen, put a ballot before them and ask them to choose, then we'll find out, after a century or so...

[KJW]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We haven't tried democracy yet, we keep excluding people from voting both directly and passively.

Give 'everyone' (regardless of age and capacity) a pen, put a ballot before them and ask them to choose, then we'll find out, after a century or so...

Who is "we"? For Australian citizens aged 18 and over, voting is compulsory. And those who didn't vote in an election will receive a "why didn't you vote" form in the mail which must be filled out with an acceptable reason and returned in order to avoid a fine.

 

Edited September 20 by KJW

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, KJW said:

Who is "we"? For Australian citizens aged 18 and over, voting is compulsory. And those who didn't vote in an election will receive a "why didn't you vote" form in the mail which must be filled out with an acceptable reason and returned in order to avoid a fine.

Close, but the restriction is 18+, a 5 yo is capable of making a choice and a mark, that's a lot of people who should be making a contribution. While at the other end of the scale 80+ people, have much less skin in the game, and it could be argued are less capable.

It was a child that pointed out that the king's naked...

[npts2020]

Democracy runs into problems when those doing the voting are relatively clueless about exactly what it is they are voting on and how it affects anything...

[KJW]

17 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Close, but the restriction is 18+, a 5 yo is capable of making a choice and a mark, that's a lot of people who should be making a contribution.

What does a typical five-year-old know about politics?

However, it wasn't until 1962 that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were granted the right to vote in Australian federal elections (voting became compulsory for them in 1984).
 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Democracy runs into problems when those doing the voting are relatively clueless about exactly what it is they are voting on and how it affects anything...

Why? Edit. Democracy runs into problems when those doing the deciding, affects those who are allowed to decide.

6 hours ago, KJW said:

What does a typical five-year-old know about politics?

It doesn't matter, The Wisdom of Crowds - Wikipedia

Quote

Its central thesis, that a diverse collection of independently deciding individuals is likely to make certain types of decisions and predictions better than individuals or even experts

 

Edited September 22 by dimreepr