Regardless of what happens in November, I think it's inescapable that we need to start reckoning with the fact that democracy as currently implemented is deeply flawed and needs some redesign work.

The election outcomes will only affect how urgent this is, not whether it needs to happen.

Even if the GOP is routed on all levels (which seems possible but unlikely), we have to reckon with the fact that for decades they were able to manipulate sectors of the population into supporting awful and destructive policies, and therefore voting for the despicable powermonsters who advocated and implemented those policies.

Even if we "win" in the best possible way, we won't have fixed and secured the system that allowed them to get so close to destroying it and us.

(In this sense, and this sense alone, the GOP is right when they say that democracy doesn't work -- because they've been breaking it for decades and by now it's pretty well broken. The center cannot hold, the system cannot defend itself against the chaos of selfish manipulators, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned; the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. You know the drill.)

There are a lot of ways to look at the problem, but I tend to default to the lens of "how to ensure that people actually understand what they're voting about -- and don't vote if they don't understand".

On the surface, this goes enough against the grain of "everyone should vote" that I think it at least suggests I'm not just falling into groupthink here... but I also need to make it clear that the obvious solutions to this view of the problem -- such as literacy tests ---tend to create more power-centers which can then be used by the powerful to (again) disenfranchise the people least likely to vote for them.

In other words: much like widening highways leads to more congestion, gatekeeping to keep out the ignorant leads to more ignorant voting -- more votes from those who have been misguided into amplifying the voices of the oligarchy instead of voting in their own interests (much less the interests of society overall).

We need better solutions than that.

I have ideas; I'll try to start writing about those soon, because -- as I started out saying -- we need to start working on solutions sooner rather than later, regardless of how this goes.

#ReinventDemocracy #Coagitate

(This post is kind of a sequel to this election-fret, but hopefully more useful.)

Woozle Hypertwin (@[email protected])

Content warning: election realization (uspol-, meta, mh-)

Toot.Cat

@woozle
Nice description of some of the current problems. Some quick thoughts:

1. There seems to be a pretty reliable 20-30% of people who prefer far-right parties, even when reasonably informed.
2. I think a huge problem is the common acceptance of a "post-truth" attitude. Not disputing facts, but simply disregarding facts and not being held accountable. News becoming "infotainment" (for leftists too!).

1/2

@woozle

3. There are good organizations working along similar ideas, and I'm sure some have proposals for reform. I think some searching would help a lot.
4. Although it is quite flawed, I am amazed at the spread and durability of democracy around the world. Even most corrupt countries do sham elections to boost their apparent legitimacy. I hope we can resist sliding into technofeudalism.

2/x

@woozle

5. I miss toot.cat sometimes, especially when dealing with my current 500-character limit at fosstodon. 😜 Thanks for providing a great instance.

3/3

@wikicliff You moved to fosstodon because of the (FOSS) subject-theme, I presume? I've been thinking maybe I should do an instance more focused on tech and SF/solarpunk, somehow...
@wikicliff There was a lot of activity post-Occupy, but I've seen precious little in the last few years -- even since 2016.

@woozle

One quick source of ideas that looks surprisingly good is the Wikipedia pages on Democracy (and related ideas). Lots of great ideas and books condensed into a few paragraphs each. I think the "deliberative democracy" page comes close to your ideas of better informed voters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy

My quick few-minute skim-read found lots of good stuff, including decent search terms for specific ideas.

Deliberative democracy - Wikipedia

@wikicliff Yeah, authoritarians are a thing. The main sub-goals I see are (1) don't let them take over the system, and (2) let them have what they want as much as possible without letting them abuse others who don't want to be part of that system.

I have this idea for, basically, a federation of voting enclaves...

@woozle
I like these ideas. A big problem with "post-truth" authoritarians is that they can form coalitions with just about everyone by varying targeted messages. For example Republicans can claim there are exemptions to abortion bans (or even claim to be not anti-pro-choice), while in practice enforcing a full ban (except for important people who can travel).

1/x

@woozle
Voting enclaves could be interesting, but I hope it isn't done by state or region. I like to remind myself that California had the most Trump voters, and Texas has more Democrats than a lot of "blue" states. (I'll try not to beat up a theoretical strawman too much. 😜)

2/2 [still thinking about other points you made]