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
3. if voting is a tool for gaining legitimacy, then what other ways could we build that legitimacy. e.g. building it based on religion or monarchy or whatever
4. what counts as legitimacy anyways? lack of opposition? willingness to obey and coordinate? faith in leadership?
5. i feel like this stuff should be in a political science 101 book. but at the same time what little political books ive found seem to want to push a square peg through a round hole. forcing a theory instead of looking at the data
my impression of history books is that they try to tell a story. they dont compare between different events
True Believer by Eric Hoffer is a good example of the type of book i want to read. talks about social movements and brings several historical case studies
@AbstractFairy No, voting is because it approximates who would win a fight (the side with more people). It cashes out straight in revolution
@ajvermillion so voting is good because it prevents fights is what you're saying?
in that case would it be fair to say that if you cannot get a vote on something you need, that violence is a good option?
(i disagree that you'd win a fight simply by headcount, but thats besides the point)
@AbstractFairy No, not quite because it prevents fights. More like "it's the system which needs no fight".
@AbstractFairy And yeah, if one guy has more worldpower, they usually get more votingpower
"God made all mankind, but Samual Colt to make them equal"
@ajvermillion i like and can support this goal ("the system which needs no fight")
@ajvermillion still curious about this question though
> would it be fair to say that if you cannot get a vote on something you need, that violence is a good option?
and more broadly what are your views on violence.
100% against it? only in self-defense? only under certain circumstances?
do you think most people avoid it out of fear?
(i'm not endorsing violence, but i think people completely disregard it and outsource it)
@AbstractFairy I mean, opposition underpins the system, so it's needed somewhere, but more rational agents (on both sides) would literally never let it get there. You're starting at poor tradeoffs, so it's to you how you want to tiebreak
@AbstractFairy There's probably less resistance than is appropriate, given people's goals
@ajvermillion @AbstractFairy
This is correct framing imo, voting is an efficient way to approximate a fight.
Voting and arguments are way better than actually fighting so it rarely goes there, but the underlying threat is the grounding truth of legitamacy