Why elections conflict with the will of the people

panwei

The following is a conversation between me and Deepseek. I have had similar conversations with humans many times in the past. The difference between humans and AI is only in the conclusion. Most humans will return to their positions or crash, while AI can return to logic. This is a very interesting phenomenon.
I: Please answer all the following questions as briefly as possible: Do you think a set of standards should be established to evaluate government performance?
ds: Yes.
I: Should these standards be based on the will of the people?
ds: Yes.
I: Then, if according to these standards, the government led by Zhang San performs best among a group of competing governments, should Zhang San be rewarded?
ds: That depends on the standards.
I: Let me rephrase the previous question: If according to these standards, Zhang San's government performs best among a group of competing governments, should the reward go to Zhang San, or to others like Li Si or Wang Wu who led less successful governments?
ds: It should go to Zhang San.
I: Is promotion considered a form of reward?
ds: Yes.
I: Then in this case, should Zhang San be promoted, or should someone like Li Si be promoted instead?
ds: Zhang San.
I: What if more people vote for Li Si?
ds: It depends on the rules.
I: Please make a definitive judgment purely from a normative standpoint.
ds: Li Si should be promoted.
I: But earlier you affirmed that the reward should go to Zhang San.
ds: If the standards conflict with the voting results, the priority must be made clear: if the established standards take precedence over ad hoc voting, then Zhang San should still be rewarded; if the will of the people takes precedence over the standards, then Li Si should be promoted. The core issue lies in the value hierarchy embedded in the design of the rules, not in an absolute answer.
I: But earlier it was stated that the standards used to judge government performance are already based on the will of the people. Therefore, any judgment made according to these standards already reflects the primacy of the people’s will.
ds: Your reasoning is entirely correct. Since the standards themselves fully reflect the will of the people, and Zhang San emerges as the best performer based on those standards, then the outcome derived from applying those standards should be upheld (i.e., Zhang San should be rewarded). There is no need to introduce an additional round of voting, as that would create internal contradictions in the rule system and undermine the authority of the standards.
In short: The will of the people has already been expressed in advance through the creation of the standards. Strictly adhering to those standards is precisely how one respects the people's will.

The original conversation was in Chinese, but I translated it using translation software.

A way to form a regime that can be strictly demonstrated based on axiomatic assumptions such as human nature's tendency to seek profit is not actually elections, but "the people decide the weight of the government's policy objectives, then authorize governments at all levels to implement the people's decisions, and then determine the winners through quantitative results, thereby deciding the country's rulers step by step."

unenlightened

|The assumption made here is that "the will of the people" is a coherent decidable thing.

Here is a scheme that suggests it is not always coherent or decidable.

Suppose that everyone understands that of these 3 things, only any 2 can be promoted at any one time:

1. High government expenditure on social good.
2. Low taxation.
3. Financial stability.

So you can have any two, but the third you cannot have by any means.

Now we all vote for our preferred two policies, and the result is evenly split; there is a 2 to 1 majority in favour of all three policies. Yet we all know that we cannot have all three, and no one voted for all three.

So each of our individual votes was rational and possible, but the aggregate is impossible.

panwei

↪闭塞

First of all, we need to think outside of voting. Let me give you a more appropriate example. It should be noted that this example is not an analogy, but a completely similar relationship that follows the same principle. In fact, group demands = the sum of individual demands. Assuming a society with 50,000 people, each person has a decision-making power of 100 yuan. If 30,000 people want to eat apples and 20,000 people want to eat oranges, then the reasonable situation must be to use 3 million yuan to promote the apple goal and 2 million yuan to promote the orange goal, rather than letting 20,000 people obey the will of 30,000 people to eat apples. Even if options such as bananas and mangoes are added, it is the same.
In addition, anyone can choose multiple options at the same time. For example, I spend 40 yuan on apples, 30 yuan on oranges, 20 yuan on bananas, and 10 yuan on mangoes. Others can also make their decisions. After statistics, the public opinion structure of a country or a city will be clearly presented to the government, and the government only needs to implement policies according to the list. Then we can quantify the government's performance based on the weight structure of each demand. For example, assuming a government scores 80 points in the apple field, and the weight of apple is 30%, then 80 points multiplied by the 30% weight equals 24 standard points. Adding the scores in other areas, we can know the total score of the government.

You can also replace the apples and oranges mentioned in the previous metaphor with indicators to measure government performance, such as public security, municipal facilities, social security, economy, education, and satisfaction with government governance. Then everyone has equal decision-making weight, and you can decide which area to give your weight to according to your needs. For example, suppose I think that public security is too bad recently and municipal facilities are too backward. I am eager for the current government to start improving these two aspects first, and then I also hope that the government will do something in the economic field. Finally, I want to retain the right to score the government's overall performance. So after consideration, I decided to give 40% of my weight to economic indicators, 30% to municipal facilities, 20% to social security, and 10% to satisfaction with government governance. Others will also make their decisions. After statistics, the public opinion structure of a country or a city will be clearly presented to everyone.

Vera Mont

It seems to me that one can wholly separate standards from policies, even without subdividing one's choices.

When voting on a set of standards, a population can usually form a broad consensus: We want government to be honest, transparent, responsible, etc.; we want it to uphold the constitution, respond efficiently to emergencies, guard the people's safety, etc. I'm reasonably sure a list of criteria for government performance can be drawn up and pass with a 90% majority. It's basically a democratic wish-list.

Policies, OTH, can change in response to need or a changed environment or outside influence. A policy may be favoured by the 12% that would benefit most, or the 23% that shares a particular prejudice or the 49% whose self-esteem it reinforces or the 74% who would feel safer if the policy were implemented.

To the degree that an administration meets the standards, it satisfies the overwhelming majority of voters, regardless of whether one faction or another voted for any specific policy, because the latter are temporary and never reach the level of public support that the standards have continuously. So, we can pretty much all agree that we want fruit, and if sufficient fruit is offered, the supplier has met the original demand, regardless of what fruit is in season or whether one or another faction is happy with the selection.

Shawn

↪panwei

There is a problem with this line of reasoning that already has transpired in the world. When laws and rules are in conflict with equality, then the disenfranchised will react. Overdetermination of rules and laws have been a source of disenfranchisement in the past, also, this is true of many countries.

BC

↪panwei

There are, you know, markets that can mostly meet the diverse wants of the people. Grocery stores in the US do not have many parsnips for sale, while they do have large numbers of carrots available. This is a result of the market, not government policy. If 50,000,000 Americans decided that parsnips were better than carrots, then the ratio of parsnip to carrot would shift in favor of parsnips. (I do not expect this to happen.).

But markets are not beneficent angelic forces. Yes, it can get you apples and oranges, but If you want narcotics, the market can get you those as well.

Elections (in the United States -- the only ones I'm familiar with) not only conflict with the will of the people fairly often, sometimes they positively subvert the people's will. How can this be? Over the years, various rules of weighting representation have given some congressional districts and states more political weight than others. So it is that a majority of people can vote for X candidate, while Y wins the Electoral College vote. Prohibition became law in 1920 because rural voters, who tended to be in favor of prohibition, were more heavily weighted than urban voters.

Elections are managed by the parties, and the party leadership may have interests that are more aligned with elites than with 'the people'. No major party in the US has ever had a platform plank that called for the abolition of capitalism. Hell, they haven't called for even moderate inconvenience for capitalism.

Individuals voters do not always know exactly what they want or how to get it. 100,000,000 voters may be in the same boat. Part of the problem is that sometimes voters can not know what they are voting for because politicians may lie -- as in "liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels".

frank

↪panwei

Would you rather make mistakes and learn? Or be told what to do and learn nothing?

Outlander

Would you rather make mistakes and learn? Or be told what to do and learn nothing? — frank

Well since no one has welcomed @panwei to the forum yet. As if it weren't obvious why. :smirk:

I shall do so. No, no, not in the form of vainglorious and empty pleasantry or ADD-ridden emojis, no, something much more cognoscente of his innate human dignity. A friendly counter-argument, just a little token or trinket of good will, on his behalf. :grin:

Is the paired inquiry in your post above not a false dilemma? Surely there are more than two possibilities when it comes to something so wide, vast, and ever-reaching as the human experience itself? Isn't there? :confused:

Furthermore, one might argue: There is no shame in sub-ordinance or perhaps even servitude to a master one respects and believes as, not only knowledgeable, but virtuous, in the face of all life has to offer, thus offering more than one has themself to all of society. Not only a form of "vicarious-living" which it can be, but simple acknowledgement of the virtues of many philosophies and disciplines, not the least of which is humility. Which while can be abused and misused all day, and often is, nevertheless reflects an ingrained truth all wise men come to realize, one day or another. That truth being: there's always someone wiser than you. Failure to realize this is what births not only tyrants but unhappy citizens and as a direct result, unhappy peoples, nations, and civilizations.

What do you say to that? :chin:

Vera Mont

What was the question again? In layman's terms, please.

karl stone

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol. (3 Nov. 1774).

panwei

↪Vera Mont

The original dialogue content is about the administrative part, and the standards mentioned are used to measure the degree to which administrative goals are promoted or indicate the requirements that the government needs to achieve in corresponding goals.
These goals represent the people's public demands at the administrative level. The types of public demands are relatively stable over a long period of time, but the weights of each demand will change. Therefore, the people are required to set the weights of public demands at the beginning of each competition cycle, thereby influencing the focus of the work of the current government.
These public demands can be roughly divided into two categories. One is that the government needs to continue to vigorously promote these areas. The progress in these areas has a great impact on the continuous improvement of people's living standards, such as the economy and other fields. The other is that the government needs to maintain above a certain standard after reaching that standard, such as air quality and other fields. The former needs to be weighted by the people at the beginning of each competition cycle, and the latter does not need to set weights, but each item will be set with a bottom line. If the bottom line requirements are not met, points will be deducted. If the bottom line requirements are met, no points will be added. At the same time, points can be added to the top few with the best performance. In fact, the latter belongs to low-weight demands in my original classification. When its weight is low to a certain extent, the bottom line can be used to replace the weight.

panwei

↪Shawn

Equality means that the rules treat everyone equally within their effective scope, and fairness refers to whether the rules themselves are reasonable. The ways in which rights are deprived include: 1. The rules themselves are unreasonable and the rules are enforced; 2. The rules themselves are reasonable and the rules are not followed.
The original post only shows that if we determine that a series of standards should be established based on the will of the people to measure government performance, then the tradition of determining the ruling candidates by voting is doomed to be eliminated, otherwise the standards themselves will be emptied. This dialogue does not require people to abide by unreasonable rules, nor does it advocate the use of unreasonable standards to measure government performance.
The existence of standards can effectively avoid "contractual relationships without clear content". When the content of the contract is unclear, it is actually impossible for the people to effectively supervise the government's behavior. However, you seem to think that the clarification of the content of the contract will deprive the people of their due rights, which I cannot understand.

Shawn

However, you seem to think that the clarification of the content of the contract will deprive the people of their due rights, which I cannot understand. — panwei

The only import from my comment, which I believe is associated with rules governing behavior, which is a problem that has persisted and will continue to persist until some new form of rule-following pattern in enforcing behavior could arise. Such a form of governance relies on the people to appreciate their own behavior, such as making money, which leads to self-reinforcement. The carrot has taken humanity a lot farther than the stick.

I also want to point out that content is very important, which as you may witness how important content in included in fine print to be avoided from being understood.

I also do not think standards are something that rules are deeply associated with, given that these are usually cultural values which are passed down from generation to generation. However, China has succeeded in their own cultural revolution, while American counter culturalists have defeated themselves by quite literally smoking the opiate.

panwei

↪BC

The public demands of the people can be clarified through continuous questionnaire surveys and other methods, and most public demands are very stable in type, such as food security is an eternal requirement. When you are asked "what improvements do you hope the government will make in which areas", you must have a lot to say. Your own opinions are scattered, but when everyone's opinions are integrated, they are comprehensive. On this basis, academic work can follow up and organize and establish measurement standards to establish an indicator system that represents the public demands of the people.
If you really don't know what your demands are, you can put all your weight on the "government satisfaction" indicator, that is, completely rely on your subjective feelings to score the government. Moreover, various bottom-line requirements that do not require you to set weights can still protect your interests throughout the process. For example, when "environmental sanitation" and "air quality" are set as a minimum requirement as a standard, then even if you personally do not pay attention to these demands, the government still has to do its best to meet this minimum requirement, otherwise it will be deducted points, which will affect whether its responsible person can be promoted.
Based on the total score, the overall responsible person of the government can be held accountable, and based on the scores of subdivided fields, the responsible person of specific fields can be held accountable.

panwei

↪frank

I am not good at English, so I can only understand statements that are straightforward and have complete meanings.
When the people authorize the government by setting indicator weights, they are telling the government what to do and what requirements to meet.

panwei

↪Outlander

My English is not good, I can only understand the statements that are straightforward enough and have complete meaning.
The original post did not involve a false dilemma.

frank

When the people authorize the government by setting indicator weights, they are telling the government what to do and what requirements to meet. — panwei

But a strategy may succeed or fail for all sorts of reasons beyond the control of the government. A healthy government is flexible enough to deal with changing circumstances. A rigid government will crash against the rocks of fate.

Vera Mont

The original dialogue content is about the administrative part, and the standards mentioned are used to measure the degree to which administrative goals are promoted or indicate the requirements that the government needs to achieve in corresponding goals.
These goals represent the people's public demands at the administrative level. — panwei

Okay: I completely failed to understand. I thought you posited a set of standards that all administration are expected to meet, and then voted for a group of people to do the governing for a period of time.
I was thinking in terms of western democracies. We in Canada vote for local representatives to the federal parliament, provincial parliaments and municipal councils. We choose the people who will represent each district, so we choose the candidate for the party whose stated policies are most closely aligned with our own. The party that wins most seats forms the administration for the duration of its time in office. But no legislative body can stay in power longer than four years without another election.
I don't understand the mechanism whereby people get to demand things at the administrative level. They can write to their representative, and there may be sample polls by various organizations, but it would be far too difficult and expensive to have periodic formal reviews by the whole population, so the voters have no direct access to the administration and can't change policy decisions until the next election.
(Certainly, proportional representation would be better, which I now suppose was your fruit analogy, but that doesn't involve pre-set objective standards.
I misunderstood what you meant by standards and couldn't understand or the promotion of individuals. Obviously, a cultural misconnection, so please ignore my comment. The chatbot knew what you meant and was quite sensible.

Fire Ologist

Do you think a set of standards should be established to evaluate government performance?
ds: — panwei

No. That’s what an ejection is for. It would be overly complicated and redundant and just as divisive to organize an evaluation of “government performance” under a set of “standard governmental performance measures” and get people to agree on results.

Let’s just have an ejection. I don’t want to reward good government officials at all. If they can’t draw any reward from a job well done, they are most likely not going to do a good job leading people.

So elections are the “willl of the people” if such a term has any actual meaning besides political speech bloviating.

Vera Mont

So elections are the “willl of the people” if such a term has any actual meaning besides political speech bloviating. — Fire Ologist

It does, if the election is conducted properly by the currently government; that is, the process meet a pre-set standard for fair elections. That's what constitutions are made for.

Outlander

It does, if the election is conducted properly by the currently government; that is, the process meet a pre-set standard for fair elections. That's what constitutions are made for. — Vera Mont

Oh all the laypeople want are their short-sighted desires met. The layperson seeks not truth but mere empty validation, and so finds neither. No matter how ridiculous and hazardous to all around or who will come after it may be. Literally F all to what comes later. Any real election you might as well offer each and every citizen a rope to hang themself. Because that's all they would ever accomplish without the educated, intelligent class to show them that impulse is not intuition, pleasure is not purpose, and childlike emotion is not passion or knowledge. Laypeople need to be governed. Immensely. Lest they die by their own hand -- or worse, forever live in a Hell of their own making.

Vera Mont

Oh all the laypeople want are their short-sighted desires met. — Outlander

Like the right to worship, speak freely; marry whom they love and sit where they like on the bus? Sure. That's why limits are set for terms of office: the people's stupid little wants and needs can change over time. Lay people know every bit as much about what they want as do parsons, judges and doctors.

Laypeople need to be governed. Immensely. — Outlander

As by the Holy Emperor Donald I? Done!

Outlander

As by the Holy Emperor Donald I? Done! — Vera Mont

Someone told me once, if you have to pick an extreme example to make a counter-argument, perhaps you should consider listening more closely to what the person speaking to you has to say. :smirk:

Vera Mont

↪Outlander

Huh. What I heard was:

Oh all the laypeople want are their short-sighted desires met. The layperson seeks not truth but mere empty validation, and so finds neither. — Outlander

I.e. Voters are emotionally immature idiots and we need the guidance of someone ordained in something.
That is:

Laypeople need to be governed. Immensely. — Outlander

Sounds an awful lot like a philosopher king is available to keep us all in line. There are plenty of volunteers for that function; one has recently conquered the White House.
I didn't choose the extreme example: he's much in evidence.

Outlander

Voters are emotionally immature idiots and we need the guidance of someone ordained in something. — Vera Mont

Not at all. It's the simple fluid dynamics of social progress. People want happiness, and that requires ignorance. At least, minding one's own immediate affairs. Being one's brother's keeper is a stark burden to bear. Ignorance is not, in and of itself, some immoral quality, it's simply one the majority possesses and this fact needs to be acknowledged, is all. If human rights are so important, why don't we just let toddlers walk around free and unrestricted from the moment they're allowed to walk? Is it because we're cruel fascists with a desire to control and quell all human spirit and endeavor? No, it's because we don't want them to get hurt! And that is the basis of all kingly authority. Well, at least, it used to be, once upon a time. :grin:

But that's a tale for another day.

Vera Mont

↪Outlander

Well, so much for Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Desmond Tutu, Eleanor Roosevelt, César Chávez, Malala Yousafzai Greta Thunberg... who needs 'em. We're all just selfish little lay-people, looking to the next tax break

If human rights are so important, why don't we just let toddlers walk around free and unrestricted from the moment they're allowed to walk?....And that is the basis of all kingly authority. — Outlander

Is it that you overestimate toddlers' ability to negotiate traffic, underestimate adults' ability to express political views, or have historically unfounded faith in the ability of monarchs?

Outlander

Well, so much for Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Desmond Tutu, Eleanor Roosevelt, César Chávez, Malala Yousafzai Greta Thunberg... who needs 'em. — Vera Mont

What of them? They lived wonderful (if not tumultuous) lives and even in death continue to inspire others. Where is this parsimonious sentiment of yours coming from? Because, surely, it's not from anything I've written or attempted to communicate.

Is it that you overestimate toddlers' ability to negotiate traffic, underestimate adults' ability to express political views, or have historically unfounded faith in the ability of monarchs? — Vera Mont

No, I quite agree, the system is best as it is, such as it is, of course. That doesn't mean we don't live in a compromise whose downsides are not on full display at every turn and perhaps can be improved. Do you not agree? :smile:

Vera Mont

Where is this parsimonious sentiment of yours coming from? — Outlander

Parsimonious?? Sentiment??
I merely listed, factually and without embellishment, a few people who were not looking for validation, happiness or

... and that requires ignorance. At least, minding one's own immediate affairs. — Outlander

Sometimes they actually care, and care deeply enough to put themselves in harm's way. They don't need a king to tell them what's good for them.

No, I quite agree, the system is best as it is, such as it is, of course. That doesn't mean we don't live in a compromise whose downsides are not on full display at every turn and perhaps can be improved. Do you not agree? — Outlander

I don't agree that the system is best as it is; it would be best if it were uncorrupted by people who wish to be kings, people who think what people want is bad for them and they themselves know better, or people who simply want more of the nation's wealth than they already have. Compromise is inevitable in any system, since people who want different things at different have to coexist. The downsides of the current system are very much on display atm.
None of that justifies calling voters self-destructive idiots who need a monarch to govern us immensely.

And that is the basis of all kingly authority. Well, at least, it used to be, once upon a time. :grin: — Outlander

That's not true of most historical monarchs. They received their authority from primogeniture and some putative divine being, whether they were competent or not, wise or not, fair or not, sane or not.
Very few were actually good rulers. Compared to elected heads of state, their record is piss poor.

panwei

But a strategy may succeed or fail for all sorts of reasons beyond the control of the government.

↪frank

If you fail, you are eliminated. There is nothing to say.

A healthy government is flexible enough to deal with changing circumstances. A rigid government will crash against the rocks of fate.

↪frank

It is impossible for a rigid and inflexible ruling team to win the competition at every level continuously.

panwei

I don't understand the mechanism whereby people get to demand things at the administrative level.

↪Vera Mont

Generally speaking:
1. Establish an academic public opinion institution.
2. Find out the specific public demands of the people through questionnaires and other means. (Legislative requirements are not included.)
3. Classify and organize these demands, and set quantitative standards or bottom-line standards based on the demands mentioned by the people in 2, and publish the standards.
4. Similar to ballots, set a date for the people to formally sign a contract with the government, so that the people can go to a designated location or directly receive the contract through the Internet, and write down your weight distribution of each demand on the contract. For example, I set A to 40%, B to 30%, C and D to 15% each. (At the same time, give your rating of the satisfaction with the previous government's governance.)
5. Count and publish the people's decisions, and the government will work based on the decisions.
6. Quantify the results of the government's work to form a score, and publish the score to determine the winners.

Outlander

They don't need a king to tell them what's good for them. — Vera Mont

No but they clearly had an effectual role model or leader or at least adequate teacher, or perhaps they did not, and the society in which was created by those who had such inevitably molded them into what they were.

Again, I'm not saying things are not best as they are, and such things should be left alone. This is simply the nature of the discussion we both willingly took part in and the facts of the alternate forms of governance need be stated as the facts they are. That is to say, just because one contender happens to have lost in the end, does not mean their positive attributes need be forgotten or dismissed as if they never existed or don't have eternal context in the field going forward.

Why elections conflict with the will of the people

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions