Package voting as a basis of modern authoritarianism

[Linkey]

I see that in modern countries, which call themselves democratic, a hidden authoritarianism is mainteined by votings where the citizens can vote for both something good and something bad in ac single vote. For example, the Americans voted for Trump because they disliked the inflation and transgenders in big sport, but now Trump or Vance will say that they voted for prohibiting abortions and stopping the support of Ukraine.

In Russia, a sample of such packed voting was e.g. the referendum of 2020 for changes in the constitution; it can be said, that the Russians mostly voted for new parts like “A marriage is a union between a man and a woman”, but after that Putin was saying that they voted for his next term.

It seems evident that when the Russians voted for Putin in 2024 – they voted not for such things as blocking the youtube. I am starting to think now that the main reason of their vote for Putin was the following – if a democratic candidate won the presidential elections, a civil way could start in Russian. Putin has done very much for such situation. This is similar to Syria – Asad has allowed the Syrians to choose only between him and a civil war.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Linkey said:

I see that in modern countries, which call themselves democratic, a hidden authoritarianism is mainteined by votings where the citizens can vote for both something good and something bad in ac single vote.

As opposed to what? You say this as if it’s not the inherent nature of choice.

How do you vote for only part of a person?

[TheVat]

And we do have split ticket voting here, where you can vote for, say, a populist oaf for president on the basis of one hot-button issue you like him for, but then vote for the opposing party for your Congress person(s) so as to impose a restraint through the legislative side on issues where you don't trust the oaf.  

The Constitutional separation of powers is, in theory, designed to restrain autocratic tendencies.  I guess we'll see.

[exchemist]

On 1/4/2025 at 4:00 AM, Linkey said:

I see that in modern countries, which call themselves democratic, a hidden authoritarianism is mainteined by votings where the citizens can vote for both something good and something bad in ac single vote. For example, the Americans voted for Trump because they disliked the inflation and transgenders in big sport, but now Trump or Vance will say that they voted for prohibiting abortions and stopping the support of Ukraine.

In Russia, a sample of such packed voting was e.g. the referendum of 2020 for changes in the constitution; it can be said, that the Russians mostly voted for new parts like “A marriage is a union between a man and a woman”, but after that Putin was saying that they voted for his next term.

It seems evident that when the Russians voted for Putin in 2024 – they voted not for such things as blocking the youtube. I am starting to think now that the main reason of their vote for Putin was the following – if a democratic candidate won the presidential elections, a civil way could start in Russian. Putin has done very much for such situation. This is similar to Syria – Asad has allowed the Syrians to choose only between him and a civil war.

This is inevitable in systems of representative democracy, because you are voting for a person to represent you in government. You are not even voting just for the policy positions they announce, but for their wisdom and judgement in dealing with whatever unforeseen issues arise during the tenure of the government.

The alternative is to hold direct referenda on individual issues. The snags with that are you will be asking people to vote repeatedly, leading to fatigue and so to low turnout,  calling into question the legitimacy of the outcome of the vote,  and, more seriously, the very high risk that people vote without really understanding the issue and the consequences of each decision they vote on. The Swiss manage to do it, to a limited degree, but they have had decades of practice.

There is no perfect system. Representative democracy is rough and ready but does at least prevent tyranny, so long as the limits on terms of government remain respected.

[Linkey]

On 1/5/2025 at 2:49 PM, exchemist said:

The alternative is to hold direct referenda on individual issues. The snags with that are you will be asking people to vote repeatedly, leading to fatigue and so to low turnout,  calling into question the legitimacy of the outcome of the vote,  and, more seriously, the very high risk that people vote without really understanding the issue and the consequences of each decision they vote on. The Swiss manage to do it, to a limited degree, but they have had decades of practice.

I have heard that in California there is something similar to the system in the Switzerland? However I am sure it does not work propebly, because the referendum can be initiated only by two ruling parties and nobody will suggest a referendum relating really important things for the people, like the cryptocurrencies legalization. 

On 1/4/2025 at 5:11 PM, swansont said:

As opposed to what? You say this as if it’s not the inherent nature of choice.

How do you vote for only part of a person?

Currently it is possible to perform referendums via the internet. so a referendum each week is indeed possible. But the ruling politicians are not motivated to implement this...

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

I have heard that in California there is something similar to the system in the Switzerland? However I am sure it does not work propebly, because the referendum can be initiated only by two ruling parties and nobody will suggest a referendum relating really important things for the people, like the cryptocurrencies legalization. 

Currently it is possible to perform referendums via the internet. so a referendum each week is indeed possible. But the ruling politicians are not motivated to implement this...

Please don’t make a statement and then stick a question mark at the end. It is unclear whether you are making a statement or asking a question. Which is it? 
 

Secondly, you have failed to engage at all with the reasons I have given you for why democracy by referendum is a stupid and unworkable idea, preferring instead to hide in cheap and lazy conspiracy thinking about “ruling politicians”. This is puerile. Do you want an adult discussion of this subject or not? 

[Genady]

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

Currently it is possible to perform referendums via the internet. so a referendum each week is indeed possible.

There is no need in referendums anymore. The data are there, in social media, forums, TV, papers, etc. Everything people talk and write about. All the answers. The tool to collect and summarize these data is also there. It is called, AI.

/sarcasm/

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Linkey said:

Currently it is possible to perform referendums via the internet. so a referendum each week is indeed possible. But the ruling politicians are not motivated to implement this...

How do you you differentiate between referendum and democracy, in your fantasy political league???

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Linkey said:

Currently it is possible to perform referendums via the internet. so a referendum each week is indeed possible. But the ruling politicians are not motivated to implement this...

We’ve been over why this is a bad idea, but beyond that, I don’t see how it solves your conundrum. Surely a referendum can be both good and bad? We have referendums in the US, and it’s not like they universally get huge landslide victories. There’s always something bad about them, in the view of some of the people.

[Linkey]

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

Secondly, you have failed to engage at all with the reasons I have given you for why democracy by referendum is a stupid and unworkable idea, preferring instead to hide in cheap and lazy conspiracy thinking about “ruling politicians”. This is puerile. Do you want an adult discussion of this subject or not

[Patiently] So you think that current political system in the Western countries is better? The system when half of the US population hate the elected president, and recently another half hated previous president?

[KJW]

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

[Patiently] So you think that current political system in the Western countries is better? The system when half of the US population hate the elected president, and recently another half hated previous president?

The way I see it, different people have different ideas about how their country should be run, and therefore it is not possible to please everyone, regardless of the political system. That's not to say that all political systems are equal in terms of benefiting the population. But to think that one can solve the problems inherent in political systems simply by providing more democracy is misguided due to the fundamental differences within the population. There is such a thing as "tyranny of the majority".

 

Edited Friday at 06:03 PM by KJW

[exchemist]

17 hours ago, Linkey said:

[Patiently] So you think that current political system in the Western countries is better? The system when half of the US population hate the elected president, and recently another half hated previous president?

I said nothing about the outcome of the last US presidential election, as you well know. My comments were comparing representative democracy (what you call, rather tendentiously, “package  voting”) with democracy by direct referendum, as that would seem to be the alternative. 

If all you want to do is identify flaws in the way representative democracy has been conducted, in recent presidential elections in one country in North America, that is a much narrower scope of enquiry and does not in itself call into question the principle of representative democracy.

So what is it you want to explore: weaknesses in the principle of choosing representatives to govern, or defects in the current US democratic system? 

 

[iNow]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

So what is it you want to explore: weaknesses in the principle of choosing representatives to govern, or defects in the current US democratic system? 

I posit neither. Seems more likely the exploration is in ways to further divide and sow distrust more generally. 

[exchemist]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

I posit neither. Seems more likely the exploration is in ways to further divide and sow distrust more generally. 

Could be. I’m in two minds as to whether there is an undisclosed agenda or whether we are just dealing with someone whose ideas are in a bit of a muddle.

[iNow]

That’s fair

[TheVat]

One glaring problem with referendums here is that they are often Trojan horse proposals.  Some special interest group (often corporate-backed) will write up something that sounds vaguely progressive like "protecting children" or "defending freedom to" or "maximize choice" while actually reducing fundamental rights in its implementation.  Voting for trained legislators who can spot deceptive bills (or pointless ones that are just partisan grandstanding) is often the better option.  

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

One glaring problem with referendums here is that they are often Trojan horse proposals.  Some special interest group (often corporate-backed) will write up something that sounds vaguely progressive like "protecting children" or "defending freedom to" or "maximize choice" while actually reducing fundamental rights in its implementation.  Voting for trained legislators who can spot deceptive bills (or pointless ones that are just partisan grandstanding) is often the better option.  

"

 

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, TheVat said:

One glaring problem with referendums here is that they are often Trojan horse proposals.  Some special interest group (often corporate-backed) will write up something that sounds vaguely progressive like "protecting children" or "defending freedom to" or "maximize choice" while actually reducing fundamental rights in its implementation.  Voting for trained legislators who can spot deceptive bills (or pointless ones that are just partisan grandstanding) is often the better option.  

True; you’ve got the same un- and under-informed slice of the electorate, and perhaps some others who pay some attention but are barely literate, all prone to being hoodwinked by the double-talk and the unobvious consequences of a referendum.

[Linkey]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

One glaring problem with referendums here is that they are often Trojan horse proposals.  Some special interest group (often corporate-backed) will write up something that sounds vaguely progressive like "protecting children" or "defending freedom to" or "maximize choice" while actually reducing fundamental rights in its implementation.  Voting for trained legislators who can spot deceptive bills (or pointless ones that are just partisan grandstanding) is often the better option.  

I have two examples of referendums in recent times:
1) As far as I know, in some US states the referendums were performed with the suggestion to prohibit abortions, and this suggestion was never supported by the majority of the population. At the same time, Trump will now say "the Americans have voted for me, so this means that they want to ban abortions". Is this good?
2) In Germany, the powers closed the nuclear plants, even after 02.2022, and that is totally terrible (the Germany is still buying the oil from Russia through India). At the same time, in Switzerland the referendums relating this question were performed, and the Swiss people rejected the suggestion to close the nuclear plants. I am sure that if a similar referendum was performed in Germany, it's results would be the same. But the powers of Germany will say "the Germans have voted for us, so they want to close these plants". Is this good?

[iNow]

51 minutes ago, Linkey said:

Trump will now say "the Americans have voted for me, so this means that they want to ban abortions". …

the powers of Germany will say "the Germans have voted for us, so they want to close these plants"

What else does your crystal ball tell you? Do you also already have next week’s lottery numbers? Please start sharing those instead. They’re far more valuable.

[exchemist]

7 hours ago, Linkey said:

I have two examples of referendums in recent times:
1) As far as I know, in some US states the referendums were performed with the suggestion to prohibit abortions, and this suggestion was never supported by the majority of the population. At the same time, Trump will now say "the Americans have voted for me, so this means that they want to ban abortions". Is this good?
2) In Germany, the powers closed the nuclear plants, even after 02.2022, and that is totally terrible (the Germany is still buying the oil from Russia through India). At the same time, in Switzerland the referendums relating this question were performed, and the Swiss people rejected the suggestion to close the nuclear plants. I am sure that if a similar referendum was performed in Germany, it's results would be the same. But the powers of Germany will say "the Germans have voted for us, so they want to close these plants". Is this good?

You are still missing the point I made many posts ago: the business of government requires a host of policy decisions, made all the time in response to evolving issues and events.. You cannot submit more than a tiny fraction of these to the laborious mechanics of a referendum. So you simply have to elect people, to whom you entrust the making of these decisions as they come up. And then you hold them to account periodically for their  stewardship. 

Anyone can cherry-pick some contentious issue and claim it has been, or will be, badly handled by a particular elected politician. Pointing this out is easy but completely fails to address the practical issue of the huge number of referenda required if you were instead to subject every policy to a process like that.
 

You are not putting forward any workable alternative process. Pointing fingers at defects is easy but not constructive.