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 Have you heard of The Dictator's Handbook? IIRC it's like a primer on selectorate theory. I suggest following it with "Why Nations Fail."

That said, no one else nails the aphoristic style of Hoffer.