Voice for Democracy

Discussion
1

Les,

  The surprise I voiced at the meeting was for your disapproval of the idea of proportional representation. Proportional representation would give each political party in a jurisdiction a percentage of legislative seats equal to its share of the popular vote. Moving to such a system would not exacerbate the problem of people being able to vote themselves benefits at the expense of others in any way I can see, but what it would do is strike a powerful blow at the structural dominance of the establishment two-party cartel in this country that prevents the Libertarian Party and other alternative parties from having a voice in government.

  As far as the deeper problem of democracy's inherent shortcomings, I'm sympathetic to your analysis. Yet what alternative do you propose? Churchill's famous quote on the subject is hardly a strong affirmative argument; nevertheless I think it captures the public policy dilemma well: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms which have been tried from time to time."

  The problem, as I see it, lies not in making sure that everyone in society is represented and has a voice in public policy, but rather that the scope of public policy is too broad. It has been allowed to encompass decisions which are outside the proper role of government.

  As an analogy, suppose that there are a lot of different non-profit groups out there, some of which are using the donations given to them by supporters for unjust and immoral purposes (in short, suppose that things are the way they in fact are!) Someone taking the point of view about this situation that you appear to take with regard to democracy might say that we need to limit who can donate to non-profits, or make it more difficult for people to donate, or something of that sort. But to my mind this would be a misdirected solution not directly focusing on the problem, and unjustly punishing innocent individuals who are not responsible for the problem. So I think it is with regard to trying to restrict the voting franchise just because some individuals exercise their civil rights irresponsibly.

Love & Liberty,
                                   ((( starchild )))

P.S. - I'm posting this to the LPSF-discuss list because the topic is more about ideas than activism.

2

P.S. - The Wikipedia entry on proportional representation may be informative for those unfamiliar with the concept -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation .

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

3

If we pose that the vote is an instrument of unwanted domination, then the two questions arise:
1) What are the manpower requirements to produce an alternative?

2) How will that manpower be organized?

4

Starchild:

I think your third paragraph about the scope of government hits the nail on the head.

Proportional representation will be good only if the majority is against big or more government. Prop Rep might do the Libertarian Party some good, but....it would also empower all the other small parties who are redistributionist and oppressive. European countries generally have Prop Rep and their governments are far larger than ours.

I don't really have any alternative except strictly limited government. If government kept within its proper bounds, it wouldn't matter if it were democratic, oligarchic or even monarchical. "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others...." A democratic government which is redistributionist and activist is as bad as any other. Maybe even worse because the number of tyrants is greater. In a monarchy it's only the royal family that is stealing from me; in an oligarchy it's a small group; in a democracy it's practically every one else.

I am not sure what to say about your last paragraph. Donating to non profits is voluntary; if I find out they are doing things I don't approve of, I can stop donating. There are only two reasons to vote: (1) to impose unwanted costs and burdens on other people or (2) to resist having unwanted costs and burdens imposed on you.
I support the voting rights only of the second group.

Les