As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[DEMOCRACY] - Elitism a farce? MIT says "Maybe lolz"

1ddqd1ddqd Registered User regular
edited February 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
I saw this on digg and it got me thinking (not something I really hear people say all that often, but I digress):
Democracy put to the test

MIT field experiment asks: What happens when people gain the ability to govern themselves?
Developing countries that free themselves from authoritarian governments are often called “experiments in democracy.” But what happens when a researcher runs an actual field experiment in democracy? A novel study by MIT economist Benjamin Olken has provided surprising insights about the impact of democratic government in the developing world.

In fieldwork involving 49 Indonesian villages, Olken arranged to have major decisions on public-works projects in some settlements decided by plebiscite — in which all citizens get a vote — rather than by the traditional small councils of village leaders. Unexpectedly, the types of projects selected by majority vote were nearly identical to those picked by village elites; the voting public did not try to redistribute wealth to themselves. And yet when people were allowed to vote, they expressed greater contentment with the results than when decisions were simply handed down by the elites. The conclusion was that even if democracy doesn’t make a material difference in people’s lives, it creates greater civic cohesion.

“I expected more of a change in the outcomes,” says Olken, an associate professor in MIT’s Department of Economics. “But there is more satisfaction and potentially more legitimacy through these direct democratic institutions, as opposed to having a decision made by a small set of people.”

In turn, the study challenges a popular view in development economics: that “elite capture” of politics — the control of government decision-making by a small group — only enriches a select few. “I was thinking that giving more power to everyone could take away elite dominance,” notes Olken. “But that didn’t come out in the data.” Instead the results suggest two plausible ways of looking at local political elites, in Indonesia and elsewhere: “One is that elites are bad guys, trying to steal money for themselves,” says Olken. “The other is that elites are leaders doing a good job of making sure things are allocated the right way.”

Java, unscripted

Indonesia is a logical place to study political development, having thrown off the authoritarian Suharto regime in 1998 after 31 years of rule. Since then, the government has been exploring ways to decentralize politically.

Olken performed his study in 2005 and 2006 in three distinct rural subdistricts: The heavily Muslim area of East Java, the more Christian-populated North Sumatra, and a socially diverse region, Southeast Sulawesi. The median village size was about 1,500 households in Java, and about 230 in the other areas. Each village was given infrastructure projects to implement, often involving roads, sanitation and water. Where the projects were decided by plebiscite, about 80 percent of the village voted — a 20-fold increase in participation compared to the usual village meetings. All the villages are part of an Indonesian program, the Kecamatan Development Project (KDP), funded by the World Bank; Olken is also affiliated with the MIT-based Jameel Abdul Latif Poverty Action Lab, which backs field experiments in development economics.

The results, unveiled in a working paper, “Direct Democracy and Local Public Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia,” will be published in the American Political Science Review later this year. By an 18 percent margin, villagers who voted were more likely to say the public works in question would benefit them, even when the projects were substantively similar to ones the village councils had chosen. Voting villagers were also more satisfied with the overall KDP program, by a margin of 13 percent, and were even more likely to contribute something of their own — money, labor or food — to the project, by a margin of 17 percent, indicating the greater enthusiasm generated by participatory democracy.

Olken’s study has earned him considerable notice among colleagues, who assert that no social scientist had previously conducted a randomized field experiment altering the political system used by people. “It represents the first effort to study real-world democracy in a natural setting where the stakes mean something to the participants,” says Donald Green, a professor of political science at Yale. And precisely because the villagers and the chiefs approved similar projects, the study uniquely isolates the question of how much democracy matters to people, even if it doesn’t add to their wealth.

In Green’s view, this result “can be taken two ways. If you think direct democracy is a sham, you note that it brings legitimacy without changing the distribution of goods. If you are a supporter of direct democracy, you also note that it brings legitimacy without changing the distribution of goods.” That is, if one’s goal is to change the distribution of wealth in a developing country, the results will appear disappointing and reflect poorly on direct democracy. But if one’s goal is to keep the distribution of wealth intact, the plebiscite system may offer a golden opportunity to do so while maintaining popular support.

Adding data points

Green also believes the issues raised by Olken’s study are “not specific to Indonesia; they apply to all decentralized governments.” That said, Olken himself offers a few caveats about the experiment. Because it was a one-time study, he allows, the small councils, knowing their decision-making would be scrutinized by outsiders, may have made generous decisions in an effort to make themselves look reasonable. Such potential backroom dealing could not be accounted for in the study.

Olken also observes that the usefulness of direct democracy can be affected by the question of what is voted on in the first place; California’s ballot-proposition system, he notes, receives criticism for allowing well-funded organizations to set its agenda. Moreover, plebiscites that clearly benefit or hurt certain subgroups — for instance, if a road were rerouted through existing property — could become bitterly contested. “Direct democracy can be very important in the right context,” says Olken. “But the question is: What exactly is the right context?”

Finally, Olken notes, “elite capture” may well be a real phenomenon in other places, even if it seemed absent in these Indonesian villages. “I don’t think we’ve disproven that elite capture is still a problem,” says Olken. “But maybe in some cases elites are doing good things as well. We’re adding data points to the discussion.”

The experiment proves a valid point, regardless of his opinions - people more involved with democracy, who can feel and see their vote has direct consequences, inevitably feel more secure and confident with the process. I'm not saying "down with Congress" but let's hash this out. In our society, all things being equal, there's no reason a system like this would not be feasible.

AND we could vote ourselves a paid-day off work to go vote!

1ddqd on
«1

Posts

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Possible confound: a population that was content following a council of elders may merely be voting based on what they think that council wants.

    A population that establishes democracy after a period of rebellion may (or may not, I dunno) be less likely to simply follow their old leaders.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • 1ddqd1ddqd Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Possible confound: a population that was content following a council of elders may merely be voting based on what they think that council wants.

    A population that establishes democracy after a period of rebellion may (or may not, I dunno) be less likely to simply follow their old leaders.

    True, but given the rallying cry 'murica so often gets behind (ra-ra democracy?) I doubt it would apply to us, specifically.

    Now, a country establishing a national identity and recovering from civil war may be less likely to adopt such a vision, but then again, I'm thinking of third world dictatorships when I say that. There could be exceptions.

    1ddqd on
  • AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Do you have a link at all to the story in question here or the actual article?

    Moreover, the characterization of this study irks me, namely:
    In turn, the study challenges a popular view in development economics: that “elite capture” of politics — the control of government decision-making by a small group — only enriches a select few.

    It does no such thing, going by the description of what was done. There are many examples of what they're trying to describe (Cronyism, or Elite Dominance, or Crony Capitalism) of political systems in developmental theory, particularly in Africa, and the description of his case isn't anywhere near this definition. Instead, he's done a study where he compares one level of decentralized democracy (local councils) with a further-down-the-chain level of decentralization (direct democracy).

    So for the article to suggest that this somehow disproves the effects of elite domination of transitioning democracies is absurd.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    He's also using a very bizarre definition of an elite group. I would hazard a guess that an 'elite group' in the US, consisting of insanely rich people, living in a very nice neighborhood, with total freedom to do whatever they want, far away from poor people and the consequences of their actions, is very different from an 'elite group' in a small indonesian village, where the elite basically have the exact same living conditions as the commoners.

    I would say that this study says nothing about 'elite groups' at all, since it doesn't study an elite group, at least not nearly in the same context as that of the modern industrialized world.

    SageinaRage on
    sig.gif
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    This study seems to completely ignore the problems I have with direct democracy. Specifically that people don't really care on a large scale about things removed from them. So voting on city issues will get you a similar and smart result, voting on state issues will likely start to sway from smart and into stupid, and voting on national issues will be a circus.

    I mean, it works well enough in a condo owner's association, we all have a common goal (low cost high quality living), and while we can disagree what plow service to hire, we know we need a plow service. But all you need to do is see California for why direct democracy also winds up with mind numbingly stupid choices that help yourself in the short term without having the capacity or desire to think of the long term or larger effects.

    kildy on
  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2010
    As democracy starts obeying the principles of the market, people get alienated. In a very large, diverse democracy, the alienation only continues.

    The problem becomes greater still in a nation like America, where democracy has very big ramifications and vox populi has the capacity to change quite a lot - here, we get a mixture between fanaticism and apathy.

    Civilization needs democracy the way we need water. But we don't try to drink like camels, now do we?

    Kastanj on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I think the aim of the study is to look at it from a developmental perspective, thus the main impetus is in whether direct democracy of this sort helps raise legitimacy in the governmental system where none previously existed (or in a transitional democracy in which you're trying to build it up) rather than have a transition democracy stopping at a local administrative level.

    In that case, the long-term effects of direct democracy aren't terribly relevant since they're going after the legitimizing effects of moving to this in the interim on governmental stability (as the hypothesis would suggest that if you have people more enthusiastic about the participation aspect, they'd probably view the transition government more favourably and more likely to follow it).

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • DsmartDsmart Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Logistical prioritizing on a local scale is completely different from the macro level of a nation. This is why Anarcho-Syndicalism works, and also why it wouldn't work on a grand scale.

    Dsmart on
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Dsmart wrote: »
    Logistical prioritizing on a local scale is completely different from the macro level of a nation. This is why Anarcho-Syndicalism works, and also why it wouldn't work on a grand scale.

    This.

    Voting to put in a new well or repaving a road is something easily figured out and understood by the average person.

    Macroeconomics and US monetary policy for example... not so much. Average person can barely balance their own checkbook.

    Darkchampion3d on
    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • MalaysianShrewMalaysianShrew Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Basically what they said could be boiled down to "Sometimes there are benevolent dictators!"

    I mean. Yes. Sometimes there are.

    MalaysianShrew on
    Never trust a big butt and a smile.
  • AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    They aren't even saying that because individual village councils aren't even dictators.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I'm sort of curious about to what extent the elites are still essentially making the decisions in a direct democracy. It seems to me that the kind of person who would be in a village council is also the same kind of person who would be trusted to give political recommendations. Are the people actually fully scrutizing every issue, or are they finding someone that they appear to agree with and mostly trusting their opinions?

    jothki on
  • DsmartDsmart Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Unfortunately for America, the two party system systematically destroys American democracy down to the local level.

    Dsmart on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    1ddqd wrote: »
    The experiment proves a valid point, regardless of his opinions - people more involved with democracy, who can feel and see their vote has direct consequences, inevitably feel more secure and confident with the process. I'm not saying "down with Congress" but let's hash this out. In our society, all things being equal, there's no reason a system like this would not be feasible.

    AND we could vote ourselves a paid-day off work to go vote!

    Maybe it would be feasible if we had villages of like 50 people rather than villages of like 10,000-1,000,000 with our votes filtered through representatives.

    There's also the matter of people simply not getting complex issues.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    kildy wrote: »
    This study seems to completely ignore the problems I have with direct democracy. Specifically that people don't really care on a large scale about things removed from them. So voting on city issues will get you a similar and smart result, voting on state issues will likely start to sway from smart and into stupid, and voting on national issues will be a circus.

    I think it can get pretty oppressive and retarded at the local level, too. You just need a cult or some other popular idiot ideology being ascendant in a local population.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    1ddqd wrote: »
    The experiment proves a valid point, regardless of his opinions - people more involved with democracy, who can feel and see their vote has direct consequences, inevitably feel more secure and confident with the process. I'm not saying "down with Congress" but let's hash this out. In our society, all things being equal, there's no reason a system like this would not be feasible.

    AND we could vote ourselves a paid-day off work to go vote!

    Maybe it would be feasible if we had villages of like 50 people rather than villages of like 10,000-1,000,000 with our votes filtered through representatives.

    There's also the matter of people simply not getting complex issues.
    I would say instead that we actually do have villages of 50-200 people.

    However, those villages are not making decisions for themselves, each one goes out and votes how it sees to decide the course for the collection of 2 million villages.

    In this situation systemically, i can quite see how there would be a vast disconnect and discontentment with democracy.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Goumindong wrote: »
    1ddqd wrote: »
    The experiment proves a valid point, regardless of his opinions - people more involved with democracy, who can feel and see their vote has direct consequences, inevitably feel more secure and confident with the process. I'm not saying "down with Congress" but let's hash this out. In our society, all things being equal, there's no reason a system like this would not be feasible.

    AND we could vote ourselves a paid-day off work to go vote!

    Maybe it would be feasible if we had villages of like 50 people rather than villages of like 10,000-1,000,000 with our votes filtered through representatives.

    There's also the matter of people simply not getting complex issues.
    I would say instead that we actually do have villages of 50-200 people.

    However, those villages are not making decisions for themselves, each one goes out and votes how it sees to decide the course for the collection of 2 million villages.

    In this situation systemically, i can quite see how there would be a vast disconnect and discontentment with democracy.

    Are you making a reference to the representative system or the fact that voting isn't something pursued by many people particularly in non-presidential elections or both?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Goumindong wrote: »
    1ddqd wrote: »
    The experiment proves a valid point, regardless of his opinions - people more involved with democracy, who can feel and see their vote has direct consequences, inevitably feel more secure and confident with the process. I'm not saying "down with Congress" but let's hash this out. In our society, all things being equal, there's no reason a system like this would not be feasible.

    AND we could vote ourselves a paid-day off work to go vote!

    Maybe it would be feasible if we had villages of like 50 people rather than villages of like 10,000-1,000,000 with our votes filtered through representatives.

    There's also the matter of people simply not getting complex issues.
    I would say instead that we actually do have villages of 50-200 people.

    However, those villages are not making decisions for themselves, each one goes out and votes how it sees to decide the course for the collection of 2 million villages.

    In this situation systemically, i can quite see how there would be a vast disconnect and discontentment with democracy.

    Are you making a reference to the representative system or the fact that voting isn't something pursued by many people particularly in non-presidential elections or both?

    I think he's talking about the fact that representation occurs at the level of cities and counties instead of blocks and neighborhoods.

    Hachface on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited February 2010

    Are you making a reference to the representative system or the fact that voting isn't something pursued by many people particularly in non-presidential elections or both?

    I am referring to political structures independent of the official structure. Individually each person in the U.S. interacts with a limited subset of the population on a daily basis. This is both due to feasibility concerns and filtering costs.

    Such, effectively, we are made up of these groups rather than any large demographic construct. We may have similarities across them, but our political discussions and thoughts are largely limited to a small section of people that we converse with.

    It is with these people that we form our consensus of voting. But since each "village" is not the same, and each each village has little consensus building going on between them, the chances of radical change based on direct voting and the changes of dissatisfaction based on direct voting are much more prevalent.

    In a village where all decisions are made by a council and then that is passed onto a democratic system everyone has the same political discourse already, that little change happens is unsurprising. But once you have multiple villages attempting to make the same decisions, you have the same "elite structure" that the village had on the small scale, except that it exists as a few active villages rather than a few accessible people. Invariably people will feel left out and mad at how things get decided and as the system gets larger this will be more prevalent as they are moved further and further from the decision making process.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • MorgensternMorgenstern ICH BIN DER PESTVOGEL DU KAMPFAFFE!Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    How better off are those village elders than the other people in the village?

    Morgenstern on
    “Every time we walk along a beach some ancient urge disturbs us so that we find ourselves shedding shoes and garments or scavenging among seaweed and whitened timbers like the homesick refugees of a long war.” - Loren Eiseley
  • MalaysianShrewMalaysianShrew Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    How better off are those village elders than the other people in the village?

    What matters more than their relative wealth is how easy it is for the other villagers to throttle the elders. Even my state rep would be hard to have a conversation with unless he was feeling friendly, and if I wanted to tell him everything he was doing wrong it would probably be even more difficult.

    MalaysianShrew on
    Never trust a big butt and a smile.
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    How better off are those village elders than the other people in the village?

    What matters more than their relative wealth is how easy it is for the other villagers to throttle the elders. Even my state rep would be hard to have a conversation with unless he was feeling friendly, and if I wanted to tell him everything he was doing wrong it would probably be even more difficult.

    I am open to the idea that the constant threat of instantaneous strangulation is the key to fighting governmental corruption.

    Hachface on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    How better off are those village elders than the other people in the village?

    What matters more than their relative wealth is how easy it is for the other villagers to throttle the elders. Even my state rep would be hard to have a conversation with unless he was feeling friendly, and if I wanted to tell him everything he was doing wrong it would probably be even more difficult.

    I am open to the idea that the constant threat of instantaneous strangulation is the key to fighting governmental corruption.

    You say that now, but I think the Tea Bagger types will be far more quick on the strangulation draw then anyone with actually good ideas.

    shryke on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    How better off are those village elders than the other people in the village?

    What matters more than their relative wealth is how easy it is for the other villagers to throttle the elders. Even my state rep would be hard to have a conversation with unless he was feeling friendly, and if I wanted to tell him everything he was doing wrong it would probably be even more difficult.

    I am open to the idea that the constant threat of instantaneous strangulation is the key to fighting governmental corruption.

    Is that what Singapore does? They have silly-low corruption.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • MorgensternMorgenstern ICH BIN DER PESTVOGEL DU KAMPFAFFE!Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Seriously, those are legit questions and I didn't read anything in the article that mentioned it. I'm sure they final published article will deal with it.

    Hopefully.

    If I'm a village elder and I don't have anything more to my name than just being older than the rest of the villagers, I wouldn't exactly compare my position as an 'elite' to an 'elite' in a country like the United States, or the UK.

    Morgenstern on
    “Every time we walk along a beach some ancient urge disturbs us so that we find ourselves shedding shoes and garments or scavenging among seaweed and whitened timbers like the homesick refugees of a long war.” - Loren Eiseley
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Dsmart wrote: »
    Unfortunately for America, the two party system systematically destroys American democracy down to the local level.

    No it doesn't. In most areas political parties don't even come into play below the county/state level. General apathy kills local politics, because if you're any good you'd be in higher office or the private sector because it pays better, is generally more interesting and makes a bigger difference.

    edit
    And as people have said there's some major flaws in drawing any general conclusions from this case study. We don't even know if the elders would generally do what consensus called for or if the villagers were coerced into agreeing or were unused to making decisions and so followed the elder's example or if it was just a coincidence.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Multi-party systems all end up organizing into coalitions anyway, all a two-party system does is form the coalitions before the election instead of afterwards.

    jothki on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    Multi-party systems all end up organizing into coalitions anyway, all a two-party system does is form the coalitions before the election instead of afterwards.

    I actually think this little detail is highly significant. It has implications for transparency and voter participation.

    Hachface on
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Dsmart wrote: »
    Unfortunately for America, the two party system systematically destroys American democracy down to the local level.

    Yes, but public referendums create all kinds of idiotic bullshit just as easily; take a look at California for example.

    Daedalus on
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Multi-party systems all end up organizing into coalitions anyway, all a two-party system does is form the coalitions before the election instead of afterwards.

    I actually think this little detail is highly significant. It has implications for transparency and voter participation.

    This is a huge difference.

    For instance, if the Tea Party were a coalition-member party, they'd probably control a good part of the Republican Party within reason.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Multi-party systems all end up organizing into coalitions anyway, all a two-party system does is form the coalitions before the election instead of afterwards.

    I actually think this little detail is highly significant. It has implications for transparency and voter participation.

    This is a huge difference.

    For instance, if the Tea Party were a coalition-member party, they'd probably control a good part of the Republican Party within reason.

    I am not sure about that (not disagreeing; I sincerely don't know). What I do know is that your average voter probably could not identify the constituent factions of the Democratic or Republican coalitions. In fact there is an enormous amount of debate even among seasoned newshounds when it comes to where the fracture points are. Having, say, the corporate Republicans in a different party from the libertarian and fundamentalist Republicans would go a long way to make people understand exactly what they are voting for.

    Hachface on
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Multi-party systems all end up organizing into coalitions anyway, all a two-party system does is form the coalitions before the election instead of afterwards.

    I actually think this little detail is highly significant. It has implications for transparency and voter participation.

    This is a huge difference.

    For instance, if the Tea Party were a coalition-member party, they'd probably control a good part of the Republican Party within reason.

    I am not sure about that (not disagreeing; I sincerely don't know). What I do know is that your average voter probably could not identify the constituent factions of the Democratic or Republican coalitions. In fact there is an enormous amount of debate even among seasoned newshounds when it comes to where the fracture points are. Having, say, the corporate Republicans in a different party from the libertarian and fundamentalist Republicans would go a long way to make people understand exactly what they are voting for.

    I certainly don't purport to know.

    That said (and this isn't the topic of the thread, really), the more dispersed the "centers of power" the less we can fear getting totally screwed (which I sincerely doubt will happen).

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The average person is probably competent to run a village of a couple of hundred people and understand all of the problems and questions therein, wheras not even the smartest person can adequately understand all the problems and questions of an entire nation.

    Jealous Deva on
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    How better off are those village elders than the other people in the village?

    What matters more than their relative wealth is how easy it is for the other villagers to throttle the elders. Even my state rep would be hard to have a conversation with unless he was feeling friendly, and if I wanted to tell him everything he was doing wrong it would probably be even more difficult.

    I am open to the idea that the constant threat of instantaneous strangulation is the key to fighting governmental corruption.

    Is that what Singapore does? They have silly-low corruption.

    It's a one-party state! Lee-Kuan Yew gives his family state money!

    The main part is state-sanctioned bribery (judges, police, tax officials, bankers etc do as they are told by the government or they are fired/lose bonuses).

    There is also bribery within the sex industry - people paying police to avoid getting prosecuted etc.

    Oh, and state officials don't have to make their assets and income public. So there's very little public data for any supposed survey.

    Fuck Singapore, seriously. What a narrow definition of 'corrupt'.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    I am open to the idea that the constant threat of instantaneous strangulation is the key to fighting governmental corruption.

    Is that what Singapore does? They have silly-low corruption.

    It's a one-party state! Lee-Kuan Yew gives his family state money!

    The main part is state-sanctioned bribery (judges, police, tax officials, bankers etc do as they are told by the government or they are fired/lose bonuses).

    There is also bribery within the sex industry - people paying police to avoid getting prosecuted etc.

    Oh, and state officials don't have to make their assets and income public. So there's very little public data for any supposed survey.

    Fuck Singapore, seriously. What a narrow definition of 'corrupt'.

    It's been a while since I studied up, but if I recall, Singapore government officials have extremely high salaries. That's not quite the same as "state-sanctioned bribery".

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    I am open to the idea that the constant threat of instantaneous strangulation is the key to fighting governmental corruption.

    Is that what Singapore does? They have silly-low corruption.

    It's a one-party state! Lee-Kuan Yew gives his family state money!

    The main part is state-sanctioned bribery (judges, police, tax officials, bankers etc do as they are told by the government or they are fired/lose bonuses).

    There is also bribery within the sex industry - people paying police to avoid getting prosecuted etc.

    Oh, and state officials don't have to make their assets and income public. So there's very little public data for any supposed survey.

    Fuck Singapore, seriously. What a narrow definition of 'corrupt'.

    It's been a while since I studied up, but if I recall, Singapore government officials have extremely high salaries. That's not quite the same as "state-sanctioned bribery".

    It is when those salaries are functionally indistinguishable from bribes - i.e. used to control the work of the person. There is a huge difference, for example, between the legal and financial rights of a foreigner, a native Singaporean, and anyone affiliated/related to the Lee Kuan Yew. Judges' decisions are notoriously political, and always in the interests of the Party.

    You can't take Singapore's apparent positives in a vacuum, ignoring all the negatives. It's a totalitarian state in many ways, and such states necessitate dishonesty.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    Multi-party systems all end up organizing into coalitions anyway, all a two-party system does is form the coalitions before the election instead of afterwards.

    Not really. Canada, for instance, has had a multi-party, non-coalition system for ages.

    The American system just has alot of things in place that make a 3rd party useless and not very function at a national level.

    shryke on
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Another problem I have with this idea is that I feel that one of the biggest restrictions on a functioning democracy is the willingness and ableness of the voters to gain knowledge on the subjects they are voting on.

    In short, people vote based on soundbytes and commercials, not based on actual policy, economic theory, or even their own social viewpoints. This means that instead of the best statesmen or proposal, the best ad agency wins elections.

    SanderJK on
    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Isn't it malaysia whose government is trying to transition away from autocracy, but the king/emperor/whatever is so popular the people don't want to?
    In fieldwork involving 49 Indonesian villages, Olken arranged to have major decisions on public-works projects in some settlements decided by plebiscite — in which all citizens get a vote — rather than by the traditional small councils of village leaders. Unexpectedly, the types of projects selected by majority vote were nearly identical to those picked by village elites; the voting public did not try to redistribute wealth to themselves. And yet when people were allowed to vote, they expressed greater contentment with the results than when decisions were simply handed down by the elites. The conclusion was that even if democracy doesn’t make a material difference in people’s lives, it creates greater civic cohesion.

    So, we learn that the smaller a group is, the easier a time it has making decisions. It shouldn't really be that surprising that in smaller, family-oriented communities input from "the people" doesn't have to be formalized into an electoral result in order to transfer more or less accurately to community leaders.

    It likewise isn't all that surprising that people feel better about a decision if they have input into it, whether or not that input actually winds up mattering.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Multi-party systems all end up organizing into coalitions anyway, all a two-party system does is form the coalitions before the election instead of afterwards.

    Not really. Canada, for instance, has had a multi-party, non-coalition system for ages.

    The American system just has alot of things in place that make a 3rd party useless and not very function at a national level.
    One of those things being the (theoretical) requirement of a simple majority to pass legislation.

    Third parties aren't ineffectual because of how the system is set up, they're ineffectual because people naturally organize into the largest groups they can before they fragment. Third parties don't have any pull because by definition they encompass a tiny minority of the population. That's how representative democracy is supposed to work.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Sign In or Register to comment.