I Believe in Democracy. Therefore I Believe in the Impossible
Would it be better if we had Kings? A rewritten repost on Election eve.
I have two friends, John and Rielle, and we’re all three fervid believers in democratic, i.e. majority rule, forms of government as opposed to authoritarian dictatorships, plutocracies, meritocracies, and so forth. In our beliefs, the will of the majority of voters is sovereign.
Yet this can lead to grave difficulties, can't it?
Since there are three of us there will always be a majority on any issue (unless someone abstains from voting.)
Suppose the following are each put to a vote:
It is true that only if there is full employment will the Fed keep interest rates high.
There is full employment.
Interest rates are low.
The first is a general principle, the second two are matters of fact.
I vote “yes” on 1 and 3, but “no” on 2.
Rielle votes “yes” on 1 and 2, but “no” on 3.
John votes “yes” on 2 and 3 but “no” on 1.
All of our votes are individually consistent and logical, indeed rational. But let's do a vote count. The majority voted “yes” on 1, “yes” on 2, and “yes” on 3. So if majority rules (and we fervently believe that it should) then we are committed to believing an impossible situation: that employment is high, interest rates are low and that the Fed maintains high rates whenever employment is high! Now assuming invisible hand forces aren't a factor, we've arrived at a very odd outcome.
Given the above, are you sure autocracies are a bad idea? Is there a fundamental flaw in majoritarian forms of government? If there is in the latter, it will lie in the divide between rational beliefs and facts. Facts are crucial to rational choice and that is precisely why the current atmosphere of misinformation degrades majoritarian democracy. That and a growing tendency to ignore facts altogether and evercise what might be called blind loyalty in voting for parties or candidates. Pundits who hope emerging facts such as criminal convictions or crazed behavior and speech might sway voters, are in error.
It also may be the case that people often just don't care if they hold inconsistent beliefs even when they're uncertain of their facts. For example.
1. We lawfully elect no president who is a convicted felon.¹
2. One candidate is a convicted felon.
3. That candidate if elected President is lawfully elected.
I voted “yes” on 1 and 3, but “no” on 2.
Rielle voted “yes” on 1 and 2, but “no” on 3.
John voted “yes” on 2 and 3, but "no" on 1.
So majority rules vote counts indicate that we might vote for a convicted felon while affirming that we shouldn't!
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
[a tip of the hat to Professor Roy Sorensen here]
*****
If we elect a certain candidate in 2024 we likely will be unburdened of all such conundrums. Voting will be suspended as irremediably flawed. The Constitution will be suspended as unnecessarily constraining free-wheeling Executive power, the courts will all be appointed by that same Executive and we can all happily and unquestioningly do as we're told by our omniscient Maximum Leader. After all, thinking is so vexing and subversive- “WHAT?? You’ve been thinking!? Your papers, please.”
¹whether a convicted felon can serve as President is still a disputed point of law but what is of interest here are not matters of facts but matters of beliefs.