da problem
The principle of "one person, one vote" has been a cornerstone of modern democracy, particularly in western democracies. The idea is simple: each individual is allowed one vote, which is intended to represent their preference in any given election. While this principle has been widely accepted as a fair and just method of decision-making, it’s still really stupid. We're so used to this system, and most people have never even thought to question it. This system has a number of significant issues that have plagued civilization for ages. I wrote this to shed some light on these problems and discuss a novel voting system designed to address some of democracy's most pressing problems.
The Danger of Majority Rule
Lessons from Ancient Greece
Athens in the fifth century B.C. is where western democracy originated. Every man who was an Athens resident was eligible to vote on important matters under the Athenian government. The proposal that received the most votes would be adopted. At this point, majority rule and the principle of one person, one vote were adopted as the standard consensus-building framework for western democracies. The Greeks soon understood that the "mob" now held complete political control. Due to its propensity to violate the rights of minority, the Greeks labeled this an ochlocracy and listed it as one of the three undesirable types of governance (along with tyranny and oligarchy). In one well-known event during the Peloponnesian War, the assembly executed a group of generals for failing to save several survivors from a nearby island. The assembly eventually came to believe that a storm had prevented the generals from acting and executed their accusers. The Athenians developed a more limited type of democracy that provided more influence to governing entities, including a commission that could propose legislation, as they grew more and more concerned about mob control. The lengthy history of attempting to control majority rule began with the assembly choosing the members of various bodies.
How Mob Mentality Threatens American Society
The idea of balancing the power of the majority against the rights of the minority is not a new one. It is a concept that dates back centuries and has been grappled with by political philosophers, theorists, and leaders throughout history. In the United States, the founding fathers of the American democracy were acutely aware of the dangers of the tyranny of the majority. They recognized that if unchecked, the majority could easily trample on the rights of the minority, and in turn, undermine the very foundation of democracy itself.
To address this issue, the framers of the US Constitution devised a system of checks and balances that divided the federal government into three branches, each with separate and distinct powers. The legislative branch (Congress) makes the laws, the executive branch (the President) enforces the laws, and the judicial branch (the Supreme Court) interprets the laws. This separation of powers ensured that no one branch of government could become too powerful, and that each branch could act as a check on the others.
In addition to this, the founding fathers also instituted various mechanisms to reduce the power of the majority. They gave state legislatures the authority to override the president and senators, and they required major choices to pass with varying degrees of super majority consensus. These measures were designed to ensure that the majority could not simply steamroll over the minority, and that the voices of all citizens, regardless of their political beliefs or affiliations, would be heard.
However, this system was not perfect, and even with these mechanisms in place, racial and religious minorities were still subject to oppression and discrimination by certain majorities. It was not until the second half of the 20th century that the federal courts intervened to address these issues, recognizing the rights of minority groups to equal access to political representation, education, and other resources. Congress also passed civil rights legislation to safeguard everyone's freedoms, especially those who had previously been underserved.
Despite these advancements, the issue of balancing the power of the majority against the rights of the minority remains a significant challenge for modern democracies. In the US, for example, voter suppression tactics have been used to target minority voters, and gerrymandering has been used to manipulate electoral outcomes in favor of one party over the other. These tactics undermine the principles of democracy and threaten to erode the progress that has been made in protecting the rights of minorities.
Basically, the issue of balancing the power of the majority against the rights of the minority is a fundamental challenge for modern democracies. While the founding fathers of the American democracy recognized this issue and instituted various mechanisms to address it, there is still much work to be done to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their political beliefs or affiliations, have equal access to political representation and are protected from discrimination and oppression.
The Paradox of Voting: The Condorcet Method and Its Limitations.
Nicolas de Condorcet was a prominent philosopher and mathematician of the 18th century who is renowned for his pioneering work on the mathematical study of voting systems. He is best known for his contributions to the development of the "jury theorem" and the "Condorcet paradox", which continue to influence political theory and the design of electoral systems to this day.
The Condorcet paradox is a paradoxical phenomenon that arises in situations where voters are asked to choose between three or more alternatives based on their preferences. The paradox can be illustrated through the following hypothetical scenario:
Suppose there are three voters named Sarah, John, and Maria who need to choose a new color scheme for the office. They have the option to choose between blue, green, or red. Sarah, who loves blue, ranks the options as blue, green, red. John, who prefers green, ranks the options as green, blue, red. Finally, Maria, who thinks red is the best color, ranks the options as red, green, blue.
If we analyze the choice between blue and green, we find that green prevails 2-1 since John and Maria both prefer green to blue. If we compare the choice between green and red, red prevails 2-1 as Maria and Sarah both prefer red to green. Finally, when the voters choose between blue and red, blue prevails 2-1 as both Sarah and John prefer blue to red.
In aggregate, there is no clear winner in this scenario. Blue beats green, green beats red, but red beats blue. The issue arises because this voting system only reveals a person's preference between two options but not how strongly they prefer one option over the other.
The Condorcet paradox highlights a fundamental problem with many electoral systems that rely on ranked choice voting, where voters are asked to rank their preferences for candidates or options. This problem was formalized by Kenneth Arrow, who developed what is known as the "Impossibility Theorem". Arrow's theorem states that any voting system that satisfies certain basic criteria will inevitably run into problems similar to the Condorcet paradox, where there is no clear winner or outcome that fully represents the will of the people.
Arrow's Impossibility Theorem has significant implications for democratic decision-making, as it suggests that there is no perfect voting system that can accurately reflect the preferences of all voters. Despite this, many countries and organizations continue to experiment with different types of voting systems in an effort to find a more equitable and democratic way to conduct elections and make decisions. The Condorcet paradox and Arrow's Impossibility Theorem remain an important topic of study and debate in political science, mathematics, and philosophy, and will likely continue to inform our understanding of democratic governance for years to come.
Strategic Voting: Balancing the Integrity of the Democratic Process and Minority Rights
The phenomenon of strategic voting has been increasing in western democracies. Essentially, strategic voting, also known as tactical voting, occurs when an individual chooses to vote for a candidate who they may not necessarily align with politically, but who they feel has a higher likelihood of winning the election. This decision is made in an effort to "make their vote count" and avoid wasting their vote on a candidate who may not have a chance of winning.
This issue has been exacerbated by the growing availability of digital tools that assist voters in predicting the most effective vote to cast. For instance, during the Canadian federal election in 2020, voters were presented with a number of different tools that aimed to help them determine how to vote strategically.
While strategic voting can be seen as a way to improve the democratic process, it can also be problematic. The rise of the Nazi party in Germany serves as a stark example of how strategic voting can lead to disastrous consequences. In the 1930 election, only 10% of the German public were strong supporters of the extreme right, yet Hitler was able to win an additional 10% of the votes from people who cast strategic votes against a political system they deemed corrupt and unresponsive to their needs.
Furthermore, in the following election, many middle-class Germans voted for the Nazis out of fear of Stalinist Red Terror spreading throughout Germany, while minority groups, particularly Jewish people, felt threatened by Hitler and cast strategic votes for the communist party of Germany. This resulted in a downward spiral that ultimately led to the Nazi dictatorship the following year.
It is clear that strategic voting can be manipulated and abused by savvy leaders who aim to achieve power, pitting factions of society against each other. This can result in paradoxical victories and undemocratic outcomes. Even less extreme cases of strategic voting result in individuals voting for policies or candidates they do not truly believe in, which is antithetical to the fundamental principles of democracy.
While modern democracy based on majority rule has undoubtedly led to greater equality over the last century, it is not without its faults. One of the main issues is the struggle to balance the needs of the majority with the protection of the rights of the minority. In addition, the inability of the democratic process to accurately convey the intensity of people's interests and needs, as well as the superior expertise of particularly knowledgeable voters, further exacerbates the problem.
Thus, it is important that we address the issue of strategic voting and explore potential solutions that can safeguard the integrity of the democratic process while ensuring that all voices are heard and represented.