Omashkooz [none/use name]

  • 2 Posts
  • 5 Comments
Joined 6 hours ago
cake
Cake day: October 2nd, 2024

help-circle
  • The fundamental problem I have with all of this kind of analysis is that it treats democracy as a tool for finding the median set of ideas amongst a population of people with ideas, and that the “most democratic” system would enact the idea of each idea set that is most tolerable to the most number of people.

    Yes. Agree.

    This is the ur-liberalism.

    What do you mean by the word in this context?

    Politics is the process by which society’s scarce resources (commodities, nature, leisure, whatever) are allocated between people with competing interests. A just outcome would require negotiation between representatives of affinity groups, however composed and however determined, weighted somehow by the size of each group and the impact upon them.

    Agree.

    Matters of popular opinion just fundamentally are not the problem of politics

    This seems to contradict what you just said.

    I honestly think there’s just no way to make a single-seat election just or democratic in any meaningful way. Multi-member districts are better, since at least you might elect representatives from multiple affinity groups.

    Agree in the case of electing representatives. Sometimes by the nature of what you are voting on there can only be one winner.

    e.g. if society has resources to build one hospital, and if that hospital is not some weird quantum hospital that can be in two places, then it must be in one place, so it’s a single-winner choice among locations

    Is the hospital location example a “process by which society’s scarce resources (commodities, nature, leisure, whatever) are allocated between people with competing interests” or is that “Matters of popular opinion” in the distinction you’re making?