1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why democracy in my country fails to represent us.

Discussion in 'Nerd Out Zone' started by NeonSturm, Sep 2, 2016.

  1. NeonSturm

    NeonSturm Back Into Space

    • Member
    Germany is a country which has democratic election of "Parteien" or Parties in English.
    Democracy is supposed to give everyone of society a voice, but fails at it miserably, I think.

    On paper, it looks good - but how does it look in reality?
    _______________________________________________________
    Continue reading at your own risk of mental health!
    ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯


    In reality, democratic election of Parties with the "second vote" only represent about 39% of the population under some not necessarily uncommon circumstances (perhaps even less).

    Even worse, the remaining 61% contain much opposition which gets sorted out systematically.
    ____________________________________________________________
    Now hold on a minute and think about what that means!
    ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
    If you are done thinking, you may continue reading
    about how I got to the value of 39%


    Let's look at who is not represented: (do not fear the grey - I have translated it in the next line)
    1. Nichtwählern, einschließlich derer die aus Protest nicht wählen
      • Non-voters, including those who object to vote.
      • For example those which see the evil originating from transferring the power and force which comes with each vote to very few of peoples.
    2. Wählern mit ungültige Stimmabgaben (Auch als Protest)
      • Voters who invalidate their votes, including to object to make a valid vote.
      • Those who are objecting the Parties which are responsible for government.
    3. Kleinparteiwähler
      • Voters which vote for a small Party with less than 5% voices relative to all valid votes.
      • A party with less than 5% of valid votes get excluded from "Bundestag".
    4. Geringübelwähler
      • Voters which vote for the least-negative.
      • Some vote here to get their voice heard (see #5 Kleinparteiwähler)
    5. Gewohnheitswähler
      • Voters which vote for voting.
      • Those who do not want the Adolf-Hitler#2 Party to come to power or just always voted the top-5.
    6. wessen Representanten nicht bei Abstimmungen teilnehmen
      • Voters which representatives are not involved in ballots.
    7. wessen Representanten sich bei Abstimmungen enthalten
      • Voters which representatives did not vote yes or no in ballots.
    8. wessen Representanten eine negative Stimme abgeben
      • Voters which representatives give a negative vote.
    9. wessen Representanten durch Lobbieismus verleitet wurden oder eigene-andere Interessen vertreten.
      • Voters which representatives are misguided by Lobby or use their power for own interests which do not represent voters.

    And now let's do the math on an example - do not fear it, we can do it together:
    Quellenangaben / Sources:
    1. Nichtwähler - No voting participation: 28.2%, participated 71.8%
      • Ungültige Stimmen - Invalid Votes: 1.3%
    2. gültige Stimmen - valid votes: 98.7%
      • not displayed: 98.7 *71.8% = 70.87 representative value
      • "transferring power is evil"-criticism is excluded here
        • It will not be displayed statistically thereafter!
        • Everything thereafter will be relative with "100% = valid votes"
        • Nobody speaks about it in public except when saying "non-voters are lazy peoples - go vote!" or "If you don't vote, you give away your vote!".
    3. Kleinparteiwähler - small party voters: 15.8%
      • FDP, AfD, Piraten and smaller parties have less than 5% and will not be represented im deutschen Bundestag.
      • 84.2% go to the top-5, 15.8% are lost and excluded because too small
      • 84.2% *70.87% = 59.67% representative value.
      • Note: You still have the first voice which votes for peoples directly. We have 299 regions of about 250'000 peoples and the absolute top1 winner is directly elected and they do not have to belong to a party.
        • But if one has just 1% more votes than all others, these others get excluded.
        • This is not representative because of 4. and 5.
    4. Geringübelwähler
      • Some of them think they must vote for one of the top-5, else there is another Adolf-Hitler party (rechts-radikale).
      • Others think that they have to vote in the top-5 to have their voices heard, which is true – sadly!
        • They would not vote for one of the top-5 if it wouldn't be true.
        • There is no statistical data for them because personal votes and reasoning are secret.
    5. Gewohnheitswähler
      • Some always voted for the big-5 and are loyal.
      • Others lack criticism on the top-5 or think that the 5th placed is good for them without researching whether it's true or the 5th placed is just a show-off opposition which will never get the majority anyway.
        • They are blind followers / believers. Their criticism is shut down by complexity and propaganda.
        • There is no statistical data for them because personal votes and reasoning are secret.
    6. Nicht beteiligte oder
    7. abwesende Representanten
      • Some representatives are not involved or do neither vote "yes" nor "no"
      • usually around 16.35% in the example ballot (8.10 + 8.25)
      • 59.67% *(100.00-16.35)% = 49.91% representative value
    8. Negativ abstimmende Representanten
      • Some representatives vote NO
      • 11.11% in the example ballot
      • 49.91% *(100.00- [1,2]* 11.11)% = [38,82%, 44.27%] representative value
    Ergebnis / Result:
    39% or 44% Representative value !!! !!! !!!
    And that is the vast majority in the ballot!
    Which reduces it to just "72.54% voted for yes"! - L I A R S !

    "yes", after 3 of 8 types of criticism are excluded and 2 more types of criticsm are not possible to exclude mathematically from the equation.

    The only thing we see are 3/8 aspects of whom 2/8 are the aspects that matter the least, because we just assume "they have voted for the majority" and ignore them.

    We are not supposed to know that 5/6 Aspects which matter are hidden in complexity.

    Feel free to leave your feedback here :)

    I really hope I have overseen some important aspects,

    everything else would mean that democracy is made for 25-35% (guessed).
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2016
    NeonSturm, Sep 2, 2016
    Last edited by NeonSturm; at Sep 2, 2016
    #1
  2. PsychoticLeprechaun

    PsychoticLeprechaun Designer & Web Developer

    • Dev Member
    There are many issues with representative democracy, and even the best representative systems have their flaws. Ultimately one has to consider the following: what is it we actually want from a political system? If we want fairness, then the obvious options are either direct democracy or linearly-proportional representative democracy (i.e. the percentage support a party has equals the percentage seats they have in the applicable voting places - e.g. the UK's House of Commons). However, I do not think we want fairness in politics. Fairness sucks for the following reason: stupid people get way too much control. What is ethical is not necessarily what is fair, and neither of those is also necessarily what is effective.

    Even in today's world direct democracy still has plenty of flaws, in even its best models, that make it less effective (i.e. the amount of things that can be done per unit work of the system). So that leaves linearly-proportional representative democracy for maintaining "fairness", but this means that fringe groups suddenly can easily get significant seats in voting places: not good when said groups occupy extreme positions on the ideological spectrum. So what might we want instead of "fairness" in a system?

    The question of what we want out of our political system is interesting, and I think actually links perfectly to another line of thinking: what would we want as the objectives of an AI such that its resulting actions would not bet at odds with what we want? This question was answered in 2004 by Eliezer Yudkowsky in his paper "Coherent Extrapolated Volition". The answer being, in simple terms, that we want the AI to satisfy our "coherent extrapolated volition", with that being "our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfere; extrapolated as we wish that extrapolated, interpreted as we wish that interpreted". This is a rather fancy way of saying that the best we can say about what we want out of a complicated system is precisely just what we want; i.e. we want a political system that makes decisions that in hindsight we can say we wanted made.

    This concept is significantly different from the idea most people apply to politics, which is "I want the system to do what I want in this instant in time". The difference is that short-term issues can play a significant role in what we might think we want in this instant in time, and yet when we look back we will regret those things. For example in the current economic downturn + fear of extremism, many people are saying and doing incredibly racist things. They won't admit it now but in a few years time they will look back and be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. It has happened time and again in humanities history.

    So if we consider all of this, what we want is a system that maximises decision making that gives us the thoroughly mediocre: no revolutionary left or right-wing motion, just sitting in the center with maybe a slight drift left or right. It doesn't sound great, in fact it sounds bad, but when you consider all the alternatives it really is what we want if we could have hindsight now. So what does such a system look like? Well, much like what most Western countries have now, unfortunately. A proportional representative democracy that leans towards giving major parties more power than their proportions of the votes should give them. This system means that we get generally centrally-focused nations (their own respective political center, mind you) that still get pressure from the fringe political groups who get representation all the way to the voting places but not enough that extremist groups can rise easily.

    As Winston Churchill once said: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…".
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2016
    PsychoticLeprechaun, Sep 3, 2016
    Last edited by PsychoticLeprechaun; at Sep 3, 2016
    #2
  3. NeonSturm

    NeonSturm Back Into Space

    • Member
    OK, you thought your post well through, but I do not see hints that you thought about Psychopaths, Warmongers and Peoples corrupted by Power.
    But let's talk about how Psychopaths may cause all of that while making up just 4% of the population as an example.

    In the higher-tier politics, having sympathy is a disadvantage because Psychos use it _against_ you without scruple.
    Nobody can be as ruthless as a Psycho, who lacks empathy and the pain/stress normal peoples would feel because of their empathy/sympathy.

    They create an environment which is poisonous for empathic persons to gain an advantage. They use every method without mercy.
    They can do anything with the knowledge of killing peoples or even put peoples into hell on earth (for example by cutting their limbs but leaving them alive as a parasite to the family's wealth).

    Why do Psychopaths get into politics?
    They thrive there.
    But we empathic peoples feel stress and work less efficient, let our scruples not use all opportunities or our emotions/empathy be a tool they use to manipulate us.​
    Is it true that Psychos can get into leading positions?
    I have have lived in Living Groups with just one psychopathic supervisor along 5 others when I were not jet 18.
    He was responsible that 4 others are allowed to play computer games all day while my computer got put in a separate room when I wanted to program or make homework. I had to ask to access what others can access freely.
    He was responsible for removing the lock of my room after which my safe got stolen, broken and I myself blamed for having done that to blame supervisors myself.

    And he did not get kicked out of the job. I even switched living groups and he followed once.
    I have to switch again to escape an atmosphere of mobbing created by such "subtile" things as removing the lock, separating me from my hobby, etc in a living group were 5/9 peoples were selected for being mobbed in their past.
    It could have been much worse without friendly teachers and class-mates at school or when I would have cared more about social life.
    If a Psycho can become supervisor of a living group which had 5/9 peoples which got mobbed, can they become head of a company or politics?
    I think that companies led by Psychos have more opportunities because they don't care what "their" workers or producers gain in terms of money.

    As long as we buy products not personally from the producers or find another way to vote which person gets our money, unfair marketing strategies will prevail.
    And the same applies to politics too.
    But if they are evil, why does power corrupt good peoples?
    Normal peoples in such environments feel stress and emotional pain because of empathy.
    To protect the brain from too much stress and pain, they adapt their lives to live with less stress and pain.
    This adaption can be to just see the numbers on paper without real peoples behind.
    They start to think stuff like: "just do the job, because if I will not then someone else will. I have no responsibility for my actions".
    Good peoples are healthy peoples. Healthy peoples
    • do not live with constant stress "can I keep my job?"
    • do not constantly fear of organized force from a government/supervisor when they step just a little over their competencies by accident.
    • do not have to worry about if they are good enough to live or for their society.
    • are empathic, have kindness and an addiction to get social reward for helping wherever they can help.
    We enjoy discussion and share knowledge. Psychopaths enjoy information greed and share only as much as necessary.​
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2016
    NeonSturm, Sep 3, 2016
    Last edited by NeonSturm; at Sep 3, 2016
    #3
    Lionitow likes this.
  4. PsychoticLeprechaun

    PsychoticLeprechaun Designer & Web Developer

    • Dev Member
    People who lack empathy or have negative tendencies are always a problem, as they simply exist. So the question is which system would they be the most limited within? Within a direct democracy or linearly proportional representative democracy they would have as much power as the proportion of the population they make up. So if 10% of people had such negative tendencies or lack of empathy, then 10% of voting would more often be against the common interests of everyone (including the 10%) if hindsight existed at the time of the vote. Within the system we have now, however, they would have significantly less voting power as they would support fringe groups which would get minority amounts of the vote.

    Let's consider if these people instead are a part of the major parties. How do systems limit their damage then? In any representative democracy, parties stand for election with a policy set. Once in power a party can not deviate significantly from this policy set and expect reelection except in exceptional circumstances such as the outbreak of war where the party itself had not sought the war. Thus to become a major party, a given party must acquire a reputation for being reasonably true to their word as well as publicly support a policy set that is in line with the voters' desires. This means that anyone who has ill-intentions cannot manoeuvre well within a major party. This is due to the regular nature of terms of office: when one is managing a nation, four to five years is an insignificant time period and little can be achieved while staying within the rules of democracy. As such, to achieve significant change in such a short time, these people must reveal their intentions; at which point the onus is on the population to remove them from power (think to Adolf Hitler's, Benito Mussilini's and many other dictators' rise to power).

    Such a rise to power is possible in any system, but by having a system that is very strict in how political parties may operate (parties in the case of representative democracy, think equivalents for other models) such dangerous people may achieve a lot less without being obviously dangerous. As a result, the question of how vulnerable the nation is to such people becomes not a question directed at the system, but instead at the population. It should be humanity's endeavour to become a better species and in the endeavour, come to understand our fallibility so that we may act to mitigate it as circumstance requires. A system as we have now in most Western countries facilitates the mitigation, but the rest is on us as individuals to stand up to threats from within to achieving action that is in line with our volition.
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2016
    PsychoticLeprechaun, Sep 3, 2016
    Last edited by PsychoticLeprechaun; at Sep 3, 2016
    #4
  5. NeonSturm

    NeonSturm Back Into Space

    • Member
    Unless they are represented by the big ones.
    CDU/CSU and SPD were big as long as I remember politics.
    They have some politicians for 12 years which is long enough for some manipulations, not just political but for afterwards when they join companies in free market.

    I can't follow you to 10% (for general). I said 4% which was derived from FreiwilligFrei.info's Article about them, but I heard that number somewhere else too.
    It's perhaps (guess) 10% in politics because politics aren't representative.
    Would you want 10% Psychopaths in a non-representative or 4% in a fully representative system?​

    I think counting on these 10% going into fringe groups is not a good assumption to argue with.
    Also they do not vote against themselves. There are laws for empathic peoples and laws for bureaucracy. We choose freedom, they choose bureaucracy
    Decide yourself if that is true:
    http://www.stop-esm.org/
    http://www.esm-vertrag.com/
    http://www.target-2.de/
    http://www.fiskalpakt.info/

    And do not forget how the "Federal Reserve Bank" law for US, just before Christmas they got power over the US money press
    – this is immoral because it is bypassing the representation in favour of manipulation.

    And Präsident Abraham Lincoln who tried to revert such things and got murdered.
    If public is against esm/target2/fiskalpakt what do we do? We cannot not vote (not heard). We cannot vote invalid (not heard). We cannot vote fringe groups (not heard).
    The government twists statistics in such a way that you never see all types of protest in one statistic.
    In the OP, I point exactly that out.​

    We are supposed to have a constitution-curt where the government has to defend laws against the terms of our constitution.
    The one we have is unreachable and their members are elected by the Bundesinnenminister (Home Secretary) instead of by public vote. But we are grown up without this constitutionally granted organisation.​
  6. PsychoticLeprechaun

    PsychoticLeprechaun Designer & Web Developer

    • Dev Member
    The 10% was just an example number, an accurate value doesn't change the point which is simple for a given minority of people who hold fringe values, non-linear representative democracy will make it harder for them to apply those values at a national scale. Now this point of course protects the nation, as I've outlined so far. It also makes it harder for supposedly "obvious" good things such as standing against agreements such as the TTIP, and I would guess the ESM though I do not know the context of it, harder if only a minority of the nation can understand or be brought to care. So there are limitations. But this limitation isn't dreadful, for the following reason: any things that government pass have to be within a certain bracket of acceptability; the UK government has only managed to get support to pass certain intranational security measures where if the Home Secretary - now Prime Minister - had her way without the system providing roadblocks she would have passed far more draconian measures a long time ago.

    I won't deny there are limitations, and they become a part of evaluating which system is preferable, but the system we have is one of the safest I know of to successfully satisfy the volition of those living within it. Any more "fair" system would make extremes too easily effective and Europe would be in far worse shape if every person had equal say. A simple way to visualise it is this: direct democracy is a flat playing field with everyone at the same stature. Then you have dictatorship which is a field with one person on a huge pedestal. Now both these fields have their benefits: quite often a majority of the masses have no ethical right to vote on certain things due to a lack of information at hand and lack of ability to process what information they do have, so in that way an intelligent dictator can bring many benefits to certain categories of decisions. Similarly the dictator can quickly be corrupted and make decisions that benefit himself and close allies before the population under their rule. There are different models for the middle ground, but the obvious thing that links them all is that they will be democracies of sorts. You have first-past-the-post which is somewhat more in the direction of dictatorship and then you have linearly proportional representation which is more in the direction of a direct democracy. However both of these have limitations outlined by myself earlier (for FPTP limitations are that it really does favour big parties too much and doesn't represent fringe groups at all, for linear limitations are that it hands fringe groups too easy a route to power which makes changes in national & international circumstances too effective in changing the policies of the nation). Again, the option that's left is a democratic system that sits in the middle, that is proportionally representative, but not linearly so.

    I will grant, this still leaves the ability for nationalistic or socialist parties to become majority parties, or at least big components of the political system, but if that is the case, then I would point to this being a question not of "what is wrong with the system?", but of "is the mindset of the nation problematic?".

    Now socialist parties getting support isn't something I'm against, socialism makes sense to me in a world more and more dominated by automation, that said others would make an argument that this is a sign of a problematic national mindset - and that they would is all that matters, there isn't a definitive right or wrong and as I discussed before the political system should aim to satisfy the nations' collective volition. I would argue that there is a problem with the mindset of the voters if nationalistic parties gain a large sway. There has simply never been a nationalistic nation in history I can think of that hasn't been seen as naive or dangerous (or both) for it in hindsight (see colonial Britain, Nazi Germany, North Korea, even modern America to a lesser degree etc.).

    Thus, to answer the question of is the mindset of the nation problematic given non-centrally focused majority parties, one must answer: "no". If most people do not vote centrally (and parties in the center exist who are reasonable candidates for voting for), then it indicates that the population may have divergent volition, and that even in hindsight there would be multiple political centers that would have been ideal to different majority groups of the nation. I have not thought too much about how one might resolve divergent volition, but needless to say it is a tough one that no political system in existence handles with grace. In fact we don't even know if volition can be divergent, and maybe with perfect hindsight agreement on a single center would have been reached by the two significantly different majorities.

    The final case to consider is if there is just one center, and that the nation becomes nationalistic or socialist (or any other "ist" not coming to mind in this instant). The question is once again: "is the mindset of the nation problematic?". For such a thing to occur in a political system as the one I have been defending, it would be a slow process that occurs over time in most circumstances. So it is highly likely that this drift to nationalism or socialism would satisfy the volition of the nation internally. Thus the thing left to consider is the implications of such a drift for the international community: socialism doesn't exactly pose a threat to the international community militarily, but it could do economically in some circumstances. As such there is potential pressure it would put on the international community to adapt to best handle the situation. For a drift to nationalism, this can pose both militaristic and economical threats and so again there is a potential pressure on the international community to handle this. In both cases, there is potential for an ill-handled drift away from the international political center to, while satisfying the volition of the people within the nation, act in opposition to the volition of the people of the international community affected.

    This case is one I can't really speak to a solution for. It is my opinion that as long as nations exist there won't be an obvious solution, maybe even any solution at all. Nations act on their own volition, and only international organisations that unify nations such as the EU or in a sense the American federal government (the states are effectively nations in this discussion) can possibly hope to unify the volitions of different nations. This solution is one of moving the problem up a scale only, however, as it effectively makes nations the equivalent of American states inside a bigger nation. One day, I hope in my lifetime, we'll see a European federal government that ties all EU states into one nation. It just makes sense because once we have one global government we push the problem to a scale that doesn't affect us, until we move off the planet at any rate. A global government would allow us to truly unify the volitions of everyone on the entire planet.
  7. NeonSturm

    NeonSturm Back Into Space

    • Member
    Governments are not extrapolated volitions of all voters and neither in-cooperate them.
    They are perhaps less but never more than a muddled extrapolated volition.

    Some peoples say: "Nobody has the right to force others. Force is only allowed to defend against force. Voters cannot transfer their right to initiate force toward who they vote."
    A: These peoples are not represented.

    Some peoples say: "We do not want third parties to control our lives. The national enforcement of proprietary software licenses restrict freedom".
    B: But if they vote minority parties, they are not represented.

    Some poeples say: "We gain more dollars if we send lobbyists to change law for us".
    C: These parties are represented over-proportionally because nobody from A or B can answer.

    Some peoples say: "Damn complex politics. These pirates have nothing to say anyway, I vote what all others vote".
    D: This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of a stupid majority.
    Governments reduce the number of volitions which make decisions. By excluding vote-pacifism and vote-protest, the extrapolated volition of voters become muddled because some aspects get just thrown out of the window without an aware decision process.
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2016
    NeonSturm, Sep 4, 2016
    Last edited by NeonSturm; at Sep 4, 2016
    #7
  8. PsychoticLeprechaun

    PsychoticLeprechaun Designer & Web Developer

    • Dev Member
    My point regarding attempting to satisfy the volition of the nation has been misunderstood: the system cannot be intelligent, simply for the fact that we as architects of it do not know our own volition in almost all circumstances. We couldn't program an AI with a set of rules and be sure it would behave the way we want in the future, as we don't have hindsight with which to be sure we got the rules correct. The same is true of any political system we might design. We can only design a system in which it is the most likely our volition will be satisfied consistently. This doesn't mean satisfying it perfectly in every case, but being "about right" in all but a small number of cases.

    This sort of system is one in which decisions are maximally in line with every individual's volition, and so generally has to stay close to the political center of the group it represents. Again, this does leave minority groups unable to make big policy decisions, but this is the point of the system. For every minority group that turns out to have a good policy it wants to have enacted by the nation, there are a larger number more that have a bad policy. As this is the case, if we desire a system that maximises volition - as I made my case we do at the start - it makes sense that we have to make minority groups work hard to gain traction before being able to push policy through. That way, while the evolution of the nation to the idealised moral compass is slower, it is much steadier and more likely to succeed in approaching it.

    To tackle some things specifically: people from group A are naive. The idea that nobody has the right to force their opinions on others is a sound one. It cannot be extrapolated, however, to imply that therefore everyone's opinions must either be equally valued or satisfied. The former (i.e. that all opinions are valid) gives rise to a system in which extreme views can too easily take hold. The latter (i.e. that all opinions must be satisfied) is tantamount to anarchy and, as much as anarchy in ideal circumstances would be great, humans cannot be trusted to the extent required for "good" anarchy.

    Group B represents people who are in the minority concerning their views, and I tackled that earlier: yes there exist minority groups that have a good policy or two, but these minority groups are themselves in the minority and so we must make them work to achieve traction so that the system weeds out the bad ideas. Yes this means these good policies from minority groups will take hold more slowly, but compromise like this is sometimes necessary if you want safety in a system. Not much different to having a truly safe program (e.g. the Dissent project) has to take longer to run to ensure that safety.

    Group C is unimportant as the system I'm defending isn't the American take on democracy, in fact I would say that is an example of a bad system for democracy. In fact, a good system would not allow lobbying simply for the fact it introduces biases that reduce the chance the system will be tending towards satisfying the volition of the nation instead of the immediate desires of the stakeholders of big corporations.

    Your final group, D, is a problem, but it is not a problem with the system. That is entirely a problem to do with the fact that the populations of most nations get little to no education in the functioning of the political system in which they reside. As such, they are ill-equipped to understand how to dissect policy for themselves and results in plenty of stupidity - *cough* Trump */cough*. This cannot be solved by any system that doesn't simply get rid of the ability for people to vote either in general or unless they satisfy certain criteria for education and so on. Such systems inherently mean that a large swathe of the population will see their volition ignored.

    Ultimately, unless you are arguing for a non-democratic system (it seems to me what you want, even if it isn't what you think you mean, is non-democratic and more in line with a meritocratic dictatorship or meritocratic council system) you have to accept that vote-pacifists have to be ignored, they are naive and are actively screwing themselves over - I have no patience for such people. Further, people protesting with their vote are not ignored in the system I am proposing; they get their say, and once their say on a given policy represents a majority, it will be heeded.

    If you do mean to say you would rather a meritocratic dictatorship/council system. Either of these has its own flaws, the former more obvious and worse versions of the issues of the latter. A meritocratic council-based system is inherently bad as it means only the volition of a few is satisfied consistently as the people in charge will always be biased regardless of how aware they are of the volition of the rest of the nation. Intelligence doesn't beget wisdom, and arguably no human, or subset, of a group of humans is ever going to be wise enough to consistently make decisions that satisfy the volition of the entire group. Hence a system in which the group is somewhat meritocratic (there is a correlation between capability and educated-ness, and success in politics) but exchanges the group in charge on the vote of the nation periodically corrects for these flaws. It does of course mean the rate of traction gain of individual policies are slower, but the policies that are successful will be typically more in line with the volition of the nation.
  9. NeonSturm

    NeonSturm Back Into Space

    • Member
    This "most likely" does not neccessarily include wisdom about possibilities of abuse.

    What if I point out that the problem is not minority groups but splitting majority groups into many minority groups if they protest in different ways?

    Example:
    I am against the CDU/CSU/SPD, I do not give government my vote.
    I am against the CDU/CSU/SPD, but because I am also against Grüne/Linke, I vote a small party which is called "NO!".
    I am against the CDU/CSU/SPD, but I am also against the ESM. I vote the anti-ESM group so I cannot vote the Grüne/Linke group at the same time.
    I am against the CDU/CSU/SPD, I vote Grüne/Linke because they are the next biggest.

    By splitting these majority which rejects the Euro into 4 minority groups which are excluded …
    The majority becomes a minority.

    Completely unrelated secondary thoughts split this majority into minorities which get not heard. Good?

    Because of this I am against the system we have now. Against the 5%-gap between majority parties and minority parties.
    But if the minority-voters are counted together with the non-voters and the anti-esm voters which object and the majority-voters which vote Grüne/Linke because they object, then I would not have this objection.

    For this, you need the "Scherbengericht", where everyone could vote for what he likes least rather than just for what he likes most.
    Objections to specific restrictions/groups should weight more than general agreements to a group of decisions.

    Nobody has the right to force their opinions onto others, EXCEPT in self-defence.
    But by voting, libertarians would impose their rule over non-voters aswell - they would get the wrong target and that's their problem.


    EDIT 1:​
    I think I have found a "sufficient definition" to argument with freedom by tinkering around whether rules are representative and how arguments are represented by rules.

    Imagine following rule-supporting arguments (positive/negative):
    p1, n2, n3, p4, p6, p10, n11 without consideration of n5, n7, p8, n9 sorted by 1=strongest argument.​

    We humans try to simplify:
    Pairs: (p1, n2), (n3, p4), p6, (p10, n11)
    Evaluation1: (positive, negative), –, very positive, –, –, –, positive.
    Evaluation2: positive, very positive, positive
    But if we consider all:
    Pairs: (p1, n2), (n3, p4), (n5, p6), n7, (p8, n9), (p10, n11)
    Evaluation1: (positive, negative), (negative, very negative, positive, positive).
    Evaluation2: positive, very negative
    Similar rounding errors happen when minorities are excluded.
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2016
    NeonSturm, Sep 4, 2016
    Last edited by NeonSturm; at Sep 4, 2016
    #9
  10. TYHENDER

    TYHENDER Industrial Re-revolutionist

    Srsly? i can't read that all!
    Anyway,i was reading a bit about Anarchy. Soo... People and TV say that Anarchy is bad because it does not allow to use any type of rules(including religion). But after reading about it,i got it's pkay about rules,the main objective is no people that is higher or lower than you in political and civilian terms(You may nout understand me,hard to say something in English like that). So basically,Anarchy is the highest level of democracy.


    Oh and yeah,in my country(Ukraine) democracy just does not work. We get the same thiefs to control the country all the time,and nothing changes.
  11. NeonSturm

    NeonSturm Back Into Space

    • Member
    Religion can say "I shall be your only god, do not pray to others".
    The state says "You must respect my laws, do not obey other laws above mine".

    Is the government god? Depends on how you define "god".
    But I would say that the sum of government peoples combined is a god-like in most aspects. Kill one guy and the next one takes his place: Immortality!
    To kill this god or un-god the god, you need to break believe first.​

    When I consider Anarchy, I think:
    A: what would take the place of government afterwards? There is a hole which can be filled.
    B: what happens if you present Anarchists a god?

    Assume that someone could copy+paste himself into a young adult or otherwise archive immortality and prevent others from archiving it to gain an advantage in wisdom.
    Assume also, that this god is a psychopath who does not care about others like a Psychopath (as Borg from Star-Trek: You will be controlled; Resistance is futile).

    To me, true Anarchy would reinforce itself by prohibiting the birth of a god or gov.erment​
  12. TYHENDER

    TYHENDER Industrial Re-revolutionist

    [​IMG]
    One does not simply argue with NeonSturm.

    Actually,that's what i was triyng to say. And yeah,if Anarchy does not born new god,it does not mean you can't have a religion.
    Anarchy is sort-of utopical system,but it won't be real,well,because it's utopical.
  13. NeonSturm

    NeonSturm Back Into Space

    • Member
    Arguing is not simple. Talking random is simple but I am arguing ;)
    Yeah, I noticed after re-reading.
    Your post has some grammar deviations which made it kinda hard to read.

    Do not feel blamed by following, just understand:
    * The miss-matching letters/words or wrong capitalisation attracts concentration, thus I had less concentration to understand the rest
    * The missing space after comma do group "the words before and after comma" together, instead of separating them into different sub-sentences.
    * You also used "that is" instead of "which are" which gave you 2x "is" - you created a loophole backward ;) which connected unnecessarily "the main objective" to "higher or lower than you in political and civilian terms".
    I mean: YOU CREATED A LOOPHOLE! :D
    Radical Constructivism basically says you can never know reality objectively, only believe to know (which is subjective) from what your senses tell you.
    And §shared believe§ is religion, or not?
    If you communicate with others, it's not a transfer of information, but triggering an adaption process of predicting the future environment accurately based on past knowledge. Being unexpected causes stress (ex·cept you ex·pect the unexpected).
    You are free, as long "as you do nothing"-which causes the society to say "you do wrong", which comes at a cost.

    But if the cost of not doing it is higher than the cost of society saying no, was that a free decision?

    Now society can "use force" to artificially increase the cost of not obeying.
    But Anarchy is all about making the cost based on "loss of support/oportunities" rather than on "loss of freedom by (human) force".

    If you were put into a world without the humans which disagree with you, would your freedom/oportunities increase or decrease?
    If you think it would increase, what makes that out of you?​
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2016
    NeonSturm, Sep 14, 2016
    Last edited by NeonSturm; at Sep 14, 2016
    #13
  14. TYHENDER

    TYHENDER Industrial Re-revolutionist

    Idk. Maybe freedom could be more , but life could be uninteresting,too.

    And thanks for pointing my errors. It's not like i don't know English grammar , but i'm just lazy as hell sometimes.
  15. Gingy

    Gingy Back Into Space

    • Member
    I'm late to the party, so this may have already been discussed, but a lot of these sound very similar to issues with democracy in America.

    Take our most recent Presidential election as an example. Two of the four candidates on the ballot in most states (there were roughly seven of them, but because of a false sense of a two-party system, and because those other parties tend to have a smaller representation, most people barely know that a third candidate exists) accounted for roughly 91% of the vote. This is more concerning when accounting for the fact that only about half of the people eligible to vote in America actually voted. Add to this our equivalent of people who vote "for the least-negative," and virtually no one's actual beliefs are being represented.

    Unfortunately, I don't know enough about German politics to know if your country suffers from a similar issue as America, but there is also the issue of our government actually being what is called a Representative Republic, and not a direct Democracy. Basically, when one votes for our next President, they're not casting a direct vote for him/her. They're casting a vote for which candidate the representatives of their state will vote for. And since population determines how many votes a particular state counts towards, the vast majority of the votes that actually make a difference are in the three highest populated states, and any states with a high population that don't always just pick the candidate from the same party every year. You're left with about 20% of the vote actually mattering, which is only 10% if we adjust for the voter turnout being so low.

    I do empathize with you and anyone else living in Germany right now, because what little I'm hearing about the state of German politics is not good. I'd rather not say anything specific, because the particular issue that comes to mind is a controversial one, and I don't want an argument over that to detract from the original point.
    NeonSturm and TYHENDER like this.
  16. TYHENDER

    TYHENDER Industrial Re-revolutionist

    In Ukraine democracy fails to represent us simply because there's no democracy.
    I guess we are at point when revolution is only option.
    EDIT:
    Also,plz, America isn't a country :laugh:
    TYHENDER, Mar 7, 2017
    Last edited by TYHENDER; at Mar 7, 2017
    #16
  17. NeonSturm

    NeonSturm Back Into Space

    • Member
    :cash:It's called "money'o'crazy":cash:
    (and wrong education - some say it's on purpose…)

    This amount of severity is new to me, thanks for the info.
    I didn't know a third candidate existed, but I assumed about 5-7 as this is similar to how many political parties you can vote for in Germany.
    Note: In Germany you have 2 voting systems next to each other: 2 candidates per voting-circle is the first vote and the second is a political party.
    . . . . The second system was introduced after the second world war and is blocking our democracy to be a true one.


    It is similar, but a bit more disguised.
    In Germany/Deutschland we have a law that elections must be "direct, anonym, free and equal" which is violated by practice.
    This law is one in the highest class of laws we have, but the active government is sabotaging it since at least 1953 with the introduction of votes for the election of political parties, giving them 1/2 seats and dual-sign-ins for the first and secondary vote of citizens by being a party member and a free candidate at the same time.

    Officially, the "Occupation of Germany / Besetzung Deutschlands" ended 1990, unofficially it is continued through this illegal system which is kept up with lies and dumbed-down believers.
    Even worse, this situation is destabilizing the whole European Continent. We believe, spread the believe, they believe and get destabilized by unfair competition exploiting their trust/believe in us being independent.

    With a party, nobody is personally responsible which is not acceptable in a democracy.
    Because of anonymity of votes, nobody can be directly banned from the political seat if he does not fulfil his purpose, except if he violates law (and you could include "violating promises" - for example "Volkshetze / rabble-rousing" is already illegal by "international law / Völkerrecht").
    And a ban from government-seats is what we need for some (e.g: those who introduced the €uro, called "TEuro / Expensive" after introduction or those lying to us about our legal status as a country)

    For the second election-part:
    70% participate in Deutschland/Germany (ref 1).
    Up to 14% to 15% votes (from 70%) get omitted because they fall below the 5% threshold.
    After that you have 60% left. But not all representatives participate in all ballots.

    50% remaining. Additionally, some peoples vote for big parties, because they believe that small parties are essentially Hitler-2.0 (propaganda).
    Some just vote for big parties because they know their vote gets omitted when they vote the small parties.
    (disclaimer: the real percentage is unknown and "laziness of peoples" is also a factor)
    20% voters captured? 40% remaining
    40% voters captured? 30% remaining

    And 30% or even 40% is never a representative government. (ref 2)
    Luckily more and more voters start to see the 3 lies (ref 3) targeting: fear, laziness, blindness
    For the first part of the election, it is not that complicated:
    Every election-circle is of equal size and has 2 representatives.
    It suffers from the same problem as Trump-Hilton - the popular candidates have higher chances and all but them get omitted.

    STV (Single Transferable Vote) would help a lot, but for some peoples it is too difficult to fill out a ballot containing all direct candidates.
    We had 62 million allowed voters and each of 299 "Wahlkreise / Voting Circles/Regions" is at least 75% the size of the biggest (ref 4).
    This means about 200'000 peoples per region from which about 500 candidates can be expected (square root).
    I think it is easier - the issues are:
    1. fear / burn out →» laziness / no interest
    2. laziness / no interest →» blindness / no education or skill from it
    3. blindness no education →» distraction / violent protests, rage-quits from the election-process (if we use a gamer's terms), …
    I know nobody which have posted the math as detailed as I do on the pages where it matters.​
    Summary and personal opinion:

    We are a danger to whole Europe.
    Our politician's lies are a weapon against Europe.
    And we are what we are because we forgot how it was before the World-War-2.

    I know there are forces which try to keep us in this state (commonly known as lobbyism) and 3 of those who profit from it are:
    1. City of London INCorporated (which is a sovereign/independent country inside London run by Bankers and owning 80% of the world) (ref 5)
    2. Vatican City (ref 5)
    3. Washington DC (ref 5)
    This is not a mind-less copy+paste, because it's true if at least 1 person there organizes something like this which looks very likely for me.
    References:
    1. http://www.wahlrecht.de/news/2013/bundestagswahl-2013.html
    2. http://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/abstimmungen-1222-0.html
    3. http://verfassunggebende-versammlung.com/
    4. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahlkreis#Deutschland
    5. http://prepareforchange.net/2017/01...ity-of-london-washington-dc-and-vatican-city/
    NeonSturm, Mar 20, 2017
    Last edited by NeonSturm; at Mar 20, 2017
    #17

Share This Page