LogFAQs > #971904009

wpot posted...

It's not working well, no, but I fear this rhetoric. There are many WORSE systems than our current system and I fear those who seem to want to throw it out with the thought that 'anything is better than this'. That is decidedly not true.

I'd agree - I'm the one who was saying "Not all change is for the better" years ago.

But the problem is, you run the risk of falling into a fallacy of two extremes (aka the "False Dilemma"). The counter to "Not all change is good" isn't "Never change anything because you might make it worse". It's "If you're going to change things, make sure you change them for the better."

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But if it is broke, you should probably consider fixing it. And not just leave it broke forever because you're afraid of breaking it worse.

And speaking of the fallacy of two extremes...



wpot posted...

If we somehow end up in an inspired dictatorship (Augustus Caesar style) that would be better for a while, I suppose, but dictatorships are not going to have a better end result than democracy. (See subsequent Roman history)

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

The problem here is that when I say the system is broken, I don't necessarily mean that democracy is broken, and therefore the only solution is to do away with voting entirely. The main problem with the current system (and to be fair, I'm mostly talking about the US) is that the two-party system encourages polarization and radicalization of positions (something exacerbated by how the Internet handles data and how people engage with it), while deliberately crippling the ability of third-party candidates to get elected. In turn, this encourages representatives to vote along party lines rather than according to the dictates of their own beliefs or the expectations of their constituency. And makes it extremely difficult for any voter to choose a candidate that accurately reflects all of their values without being forced to compromise at least some of their principles. The Simpsons was literally making fun of this 30 years ago, and it's only gotten worse since then.

Simultaneously, the phenomenon of "career politicians" actively discourages people in office from ever actually improving anything - as they are essentially rewarded for pushing agendas that merely appear viable (but require little to no effort to implement) over solutions that actually solve problems (but require significant effort or sacrifice). The job of a politician is essentially to get reelected. As long as you can spin your efforts in a way that guarantees winning the next election, you keep getting paid. If you take unpopular (but necessary) actions to actually fix a problem, you decrease your odds of getting reelected (and increase the odds of your opponent getting elected and reversing whatever it was you did anyway). Thus, there is a huge impetus to push PR-positive initiatives over substantive solutions. There is also strong motivation to implement minor cosmetic changes that give the illusion of "dealing with the problem" over systemic change (which would actually solve problems). This is where concepts like "throw money at the problem" and "slapping a Band-Aid on gangrene" come into play - a politician who can say "Yes, we allocated more funding to deal with the problem and implemented minor improvements" looks proactive enough to get reelected. It doesn't matter if none of that actually solves anything, because that's "the next guy's problem". This is also where the two-party system problem comes into play again - if you can blame your failure to actually achieve anything on "those other guys refusing to cooperate", it encourages voters to support you even more, regardless of your own actions or accomplishments (because you're creating an US verses THEM scenario which prioritizes emotion and loyalty over rationality and actual worth). Which is why most political arguments that involve someone saying "The problem is [X] Party" are themselves part of the problem - once you buy into that ideology, you have become an active supporter of the flawed system.

In short, the system as it currently exists is strongly motivated to maintain the status quo while making minor changes here and there to give the illusion of progress. Which is actually fine when the status quo is good, but is absolutely terrible when the status quo is bad or you're entering crisis scenarios (see also, climate change). Unfortunately, the system as it currently exists is also designed to make changing the system incredibly difficult (because the people with the power to change the system are also the people who benefit most from its current form).

No, Republicans aren't the problem. Democrats aren't the problem. The system is the problem.


That being said...