Ritualitstic voting is irrelevant for democracy.

[ltlee1]

No evidence that voting being necessary and/or sufficient condition for democracy.

In addition, such ritual makes people mightily unhappy under normal condition. That is, the people cannot vote to increase their own benefit at the expense of other peoples such as natives of colonies or ethnic minority.

[A. Filip]

How Chinese can change PRC government if/when they stop liking it?
In *long* term it is not "if", it is "when" for any government.
Voters influence in US is frequently "over emphasized". They can change
much more in theory than in practice *BUT* they do change something with
real significance.

If you want very simplified version: elections are a *peaceful* way for
voters to say "enough is enough". Gross voters dissatisfaction *MAY*
break US two party system in a few elections.

Difference between communist democracy and democracy is like difference
between electric chair and chair -- Polish saying (from communist era)

--
A. Filip
| Incumbent, n.: Person of liveliest interest to the outcumbents.
| (Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary")

[ltlee1]

On Monday, July 27, 2020 at 4:09:20 PM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
> ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > No evidence that voting being necessary and/or sufficient condition for democracy.
> >
> > In addition, such ritual makes people mightily unhappy under normal
> > condition. That is, the people cannot vote to increase their own
> > benefit at the expense of other peoples such as natives of colonies or
> > ethnic minority.
>
> How Chinese can change PRC government if/when they stop liking it?
> In *long* term it is not "if", it is "when" for any government.
> Voters influence in US is frequently "over emphasized". They can change
> much more in theory than in practice *BUT* they do change something with
> real significance.
>
> If you want very simplified version: elections are a *peaceful* way for
> voters to say "enough is enough". Gross voters dissatisfaction *MAY*
> break US two party system in a few elections.

1. Voting is a tool for decision making used by small number of people or by organizations. My point is that voting has little to do with democracy. I am not saying people should not use voting to make decision. Every nation has to make many many decisions to make the government run properly. No reason to make one particular decision the hallmark of democracy.

2. Voting some people out and voting some people are not the same thing. Voting people in is, strictly speaking, betting on a certain future outcome. And of course, no one can really meaningfully any outcome. Candidate would and could certainly make various promises. But would he honor his promise? It is anyone's guess. Voting people out is a different. It is the removal of something bad. Voting in involves known unknown. Voting out involves known known.

There used to be some Hong Kongers in this forum. One of their complaint was that Hong Kong SAR's Chief Executive was appointed by China. I suggestion to this issue is that Hong Kongers should ask the right to vote him or her out after two years. If China kept recommending incompetent leaders for Hong Kong and they kept voted out after two years, China would lose face. Hence it would be more careful who to send.

3. China is a one party system. That is, it has to bear all blames for anyone bad happening to to people. The Chinese saying is, the monk can run away, the temple cannot run away. For its own sake, the CCP would get the best possible candidates for important jobs.

Imperial China's problem is that its power base is too narrow. Hence it could exert bottom up INFLUENCE over the officialdom. But modern China has a much larger power base. If one can't believe the collective wisdom and goodwill of 90 million CCP members, why should one believe other Chinese or the rest of man kind?

>
> Difference between communist democracy and democracy is like difference
> between electric chair and chair -- Polish saying (from communist era)

To the extent that no democracy is perfect, one can always apply the same saying to whatever democracy.

Difference between X-democracy and democracy is like difference between electric chair and chair. Fill in your favor X (=American, British, Philippino, or whatever.)

At present, the Chinese people are happy with their democracy. In contrast, citizens of Western nations are not as happy with their democracies.


The

[ltlee1]

On Monday, July 27, 2020 at 3:40:27 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> No evidence that voting being necessary and/or sufficient condition for democracy.
>
> In addition, such ritual makes people mightily unhappy under normal condition. That is, the people cannot vote to increase their own benefit at the expense of other peoples such as natives of colonies or ethnic minority.

Some background information is in order for those who insist that democracy must be narrowly tied to voting.

"In the early 1990s, the intellectual historian Bernard Manin described one of the quickest, most striking changes in the history of constitutional theory: in a matter of decades in the eighteenth century, elections became universally accepted as the sole strategy for selecting leaders.39 In Rome, order of voting among the tribes was partly determined by lottery.40 In Renaissance Florence, simple lotteries and multistage mixed lottery-election systems were used to choose leaders.41 Republican Venice continued to use lottery into the late eighteenth century, when its government finally fell.42 Philosophers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries—Harrington, Montesquieu, and Rousseau—all devoted attention to selecting officials by lottery.43 And yet, in debates after the American and French Revolutions, lottery is almost completely absent.
Lost in this transformation from lottery to election was an important argument about economic class. From the Athens of Aristotle to the eighteenth century, political philosophers believed that elections were inherently aristocratic, and lotteries inherently democratic.44" (Quoted from The CRISIS OF THE MIDDLE CLASS CONSTITUTION)

History is clear, during most of human history, drawing lot is considered more democratic than voting. Simple reason, voting requires a lot of resources and inherently favors the aristocratic class.

Is the U.S. currently a democracy? Many people including former president Jimmy Carter said NO. Again, the reason is straight forward, Congress as well as presidential candidate need money to run campaigns. They end up beholden by their corporate and/or political donors. Politicians end up taking care of their donors' business first.

Ban voting and restore lottery, the U.S. would certainly a lot more democratic. And government performance is also likely to be increased.

[A. Filip]

Political crowdfunding *may* reduce super-power of corporate political
donations/funding in USA. It has no significant chance to destroy it IMHO.
I have a reasonable hope for evolution.

"Political/democratic fashion" has changed for good reasons I hope.
It do not have to stay (exactly) the same.
So: What PRC is using *instead* of voting to get Red China Democracy/"democracy"?
Is it CPC tyranny or "lottery of passive, mediocre but loyal"?

"Count on your opponent (enemy) to tell you _painful_ truths".
[ pl/polish : "Tylko wróg prawdę ci powie" ]

--
A. Filip
| I'd just as soon kiss a Wookie. (Princess Leia Organa)

[ltlee1]

For a reason or for a fiction.
Voting is SUPPOSED to confer the government the consent of the governed.

Reality Check:
During the past 10 years Rasmussen had carried out 8 polls asking likely voters whether the U.S. government had consent of the governed. The following headline is typical.

Headline: "Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed"

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2010/only_21_say_u_s_government_has_consent_of_the_governed

Given the significance of the issue involved, I am very surprised that other polling organization do not carry out similar poll.

> So: What PRC is using *instead* of voting to get Red China Democracy/"democracy"?
> Is it CPC tyranny or "lottery of passive, mediocre but loyal"?

"Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that sup-port could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment."

Chinese government is a CCP led one party system. CCP leaders understand very well that CCP could only survive to the extent that it is paranoid.

In contrast, leaders of a two party system can have their lives easy. It is like two guys running from a bear(people's problems). Neither has to outrun the bear (solving the people's problem). One only needs to outrun the other guy to be successful.

[ltlee1]

Yes. Political crowdfunding *may* reduce super-power corporate political donations/funding in the USA. But the problem is deeper than political campaign contribution. But there is one "corporate interest" that no crowd funding could eliminate.

Kathrine Gehl and Michael E. Porter, author of "The Politics Industry" looked into the U.S. political system. They conclude the following:

1. Washington isn't broken- it is delivering exactly what it has been designed to deliver.
2. The U.S. political system is not a public institution, but a private industry that sets its own rules.
3. The players advance their interest, not the public interest.
4. There is no independent regulation.


Results: The actors ... are thriving, but the people whom the system supposed to serve are never been more dissatisfied. There is no accountability for results.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS60RqaFS-o 6:52/1:00:32)

>
> "Political/democratic fashion" has changed for good reasons I hope.
> It do not have to stay (exactly) the same.

> So: What PRC is using *instead* of voting to get Red China Democracy/"democracy"?
> Is it CPC tyranny or "lottery of passive, mediocre but loyal"?
>

[A. Filip]

If you want it another way:
The system will (most likely) change almost as little as possible to
avoid _revolutionary_ dissatisfaction of the (armed) voters.
I translate what you said to "tolerable level of voters dissatisfaction".

Why do you expect (US) political system to be more fair than a legal casino? ;-)

http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20120816-travelwise-casino-design-and-why-the-house-always-wins
> Casino design and why the house always wins

--
A. Filip
| Linux is addictive, I'm hooked! (MaDsen Wikholm's .sig)

[ltlee1]

Intriguing analogy.
The conclusion of the article you referred to reached the following conclusion:

"At the end of the day, the house always wins because casinos are businesses. They have to turn a profit to stay alive. While the ecosystem of a casino serves the end goal of taking gamblers’ money, players can come out on top by quitting while they’re ahead. That, of course, is easier said than done."

Casinos can only exist because quitting is easier said than done.
Casinos serve gamblers because they are addicted to gambling. According to your analogy, U.S. democracy serves voters because they are addicted to voting.

Gamblers could not visit any casinos if they have nothing left. Their addiction would then be cured by default. How about addicted voters? What will the endpoint? Voting for Trump?

[A. Filip]

Evolutionary path of casinos balanced maximum owners' profit and high
and pretty stable gamblers attendance. IMHO casino is pretty good as
oversimplified analogy to design/practice of (most) current parliamentary
democracies. IMHO it is being "subtly" twisted in favor of
"owners" without making it intolerably obvious.

"You do not have to be good. It is enough to be the best."
Parliamentary democracies are not good/perfect. They quite likely may be
(currently) the best for citizens/voters in long time perspective.

--
A. Filip
| No friendship is so cordial or so delicious as that of girl for
| girl; no hatred so intense or immovable as that of woman for woman.
| (Landor)

[ltlee1]

Yes. If you are looking from the casino's point of view.
For the gamblers, "players can come out on top by quitting".
How about voters, will they come out on top by quitting? Or are they misled to continue voting by the ecosystem?

[ltlee1]

What underpinning Western democracy is the fiction that voting can magically transform unearned legitimacy to acceptable legitimacy like earned legitimacy.