RT @pwang

Voting is not a great way to surface the “best ideas” from a group.

The primary purpose of voting is to maintain legitimacy of the regime in the minds of the losing cadre; you get their “buy in” bc they were part of the “process”

It’s not a tool for collective sense-making; it’s a tool for popular control.
Always has been, always will.

If, somehow, some general sense of “the collective will of the people” can emerge from a voting process, it’s a nice side benefit.

(the following is my own. not pwang's)

1. i had never considered that voting was a tool for legitimacy, instead of how its usually presented as a tool for discovering and implementing the will of the people

2. this kinda makes sense though. we've had plenty of corrupt votes here and no one could dare challenge the government for it. absurdity is a feature of authoritarian regimes, not a bug. 2 + 2 = 5 and no one dares challenge it, dont stick your neck out

@AbstractFairy I hate this take, it's a classically technocratic perspectives the world isn't screwed because we can't find the right thing to do, it's screwed because decisions are taken in favour of the few not the many. So critiquing voting on technocratic grounds is totally missing the point, sure from the point of view of a ruler(s) it's a concession/compromise to maintain power, but from the perspective of the whole system it's power sharing.