Too much democracy?

In a previous post, I mentioned that well-intended efforts to democratize politics by disempowering political gatekeepers and intermediaries have brought disruption and danger to political systems not only in the United States but also abroad. In “More professionalism, less populism: How voting makes us stupid, and what to do about it,” Ben and I grapple with a proposition for which there is mounting evidence: Although increasing political participation is the chicken soup of political reforms (good for whatever ails you), it won’t work, for several reasons.

First, voters are not capable of playing the role that participation-minded reformers would thrust upon them. In the work of Ilya Somin, Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels, Bryan Caplan and others, the literature on flaws in voter decision-making has developed substantially over the past decade or so, to the point where the proposition that populist reforms will produce more representative politics, better governance or a happier public is borderline indefensible.

This is true not because voters are stupid, but because they are smart. Given their vote’s infinitesimal effect, they are rational to limit their investment in policy knowledge and instead to treat their vote as an expression of protest, prejudice or tribal solidarity. Moreover, cognitive psychology finds all kinds of ways in which humans, regardless of their IQ, are systematically biased in their perceptions and priorities. Those biases, expressed at the polls, distort both politics and policy, and neither increasing nor decreasing political participation will obviate them.

Second, even if voters were rational, unbiased and well-informed, they still would be incapable handling the kinds of complex decisions that government must routinely make — even if they wanted to, which they assuredly do not.

Third, the populist, elite-bashing tenor of our times denigrates the great value that professionals and experts offer. The Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve are often-cited examples of how expert decision-making can not only work effectively but enjoy relatively high popular esteem. Ben and I develop another example: intelligence oversight. Although the system for overseeing the intelligence community spans all three branches of government, it is inherently both technocratic and secretive. (It deals, after all, with secrets.) Yet it has proven remarkably effective, popular and representative — more so, we believe, than a more directly democratic system could be.

Intermediation by experts and professionals is no substitute for elections. But neither are elections a substitute for expert and professional intermediation. The Founding Fathers were right to insist on a hybrid system that applies both kinds of filters. They were right to argue (as Madison does in Federalist No. 10) that an intermediated system is more representative than direct democracy, not less so. Unfortunately, decades of progressive and populist reforms have thrown the system out of kilter by delegitimizing and often demonizing intermediaries.

Imagining a political outsider coming in and curing what ails politics is fun and romantic, and it’s not new. On its face, this idea seems very democratic — what could be closer to the ideals of democracy than casting the bastards out and infusing political leadership with new blood, with people who know life outside of the profession of politics? Like many things, this is intuitive but incorrect. Political amateurism presents a threat to democracy.

Democracy is hard. It’s not as simple as picking an election date and site and counting up the votes. It also requires thinking about how different perspectives and stakeholders will be integrated into a system, what to do with the losers of a particular process, and how to balance individual freedom with community concerns. The practice of democracy requires dealing with the reality that disagreement is bound to crop up anytime you get more than one human being in a discussion.

Cameron wrote:Say what you will about American democracy, but I'm fairly satisfied that we've got the government we deserve. There are people out there who voted Trump and would happily do it all over again. That tells me everything I need to know.

Turtleneck wrote:Political amateurs are a threat to democracy
What we need is more expertise and experience, not less.

Imagining a political outsider coming in and curing what ails politics is fun and romantic, and it’s not new. On its face, this idea seems very democratic — what could be closer to the ideals of democracy than casting the bastards out and infusing political leadership with new blood, with people who know life outside of the profession of politics? Like many things, this is intuitive but incorrect. Political amateurism presents a threat to democracy.

Democracy is hard. It’s not as simple as picking an election date and site and counting up the votes. It also requires thinking about how different perspectives and stakeholders will be integrated into a system, what to do with the losers of a particular process, and how to balance individual freedom with community concerns. The practice of democracy requires dealing with the reality that disagreement is bound to crop up anytime you get more than one human being in a discussion.

https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2017/7/12/15959032/political-amateurs-threat-to-democracy

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Cameron wrote:Say what you will about American democracy, but I'm fairly satisfied that we've got the government we deserve. There are people out there who voted Trump and would happily do it all over again. That tells me everything I need to know.

What does that bolded part even mean?

Cameron wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

What does that bolded part even mean?

I had thought it to be fairly self-evident. If we're collectively dumb enough to let Trump into the White House, then we collectively deserve to deal with the consequences of that stupidity.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Cameron wrote:

I had thought it to be fairly self-evident. If we're collectively dumb enough to let Trump into the White House, then we collectively deserve to deal with the consequences of that stupidity.

I think it's just sort of a nonsense cliche without much actual meaning behind it if I'm honest with you.

Cameron wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I think it's just sort of a nonsense cliche without much actual meaning behind it if I'm honest with you.

Maybe. That could probably describe many of my political thoughts and opinions.

I just think about the approval rating of congress, then think about the fact that those same people who think congress is shit turn around and vote for the incumbent in their district every fucking time and wonder why nothing changes.

Simply put, the average voter is stupid, and stupid people get fucked. It's basically a law of nature.

Herbie Green wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Political amateurs are a threat to democracy
What we need is more expertise and experience, not less.



https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2017/7/12/15959032/political-amateurs-threat-to-democracy

But what if the "political experts" are really those that have raised the most dollars from special interest groups?  I don't think that is the kind of representative democracy the founding fathers intended.

DWags wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

True, but they also clearly feared too much democracy. At the time of the founding, only a minority could vote and the only directly elected officials in national government were members of the House.

Electoral college was also set up to protect us from the ignorant. Sometimes it even works.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

Cameron wrote:Say what you will about American democracy, but I'm fairly satisfied that we've got the government we deserve. There are people out there who voted Trump and would happily do it all over again. That tells me everything I need to know.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Cameron wrote:Say what you will about American democracy, but I'm fairly satisfied that we've got the government we deserve. There are people out there who voted Trump and would happily do it all over again. That tells me everything I need to know.

this..

I've said for years that America is basically a very stupid country. We get what we deserve.

and I get to mock them.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:this..

I've said for years that America is basically a very stupid country. We get what we deserve.

and I get to mock them.

You get to mock them because you're smarter?