II would agree that a parliamentary system would work better than our present system, but our present system has specific defects that make it work poorly. First of all, our Congressional districts are too large. Few voters know their representatives personally and even by the reputation that they have among those who do know them. Thus, the belief that voters have in the expertise of their representatives is based entirely on the media image that they present. This in turn is under the control of a small minority of influencers. The expense of political campaigns for large districts is another factor distancing the voters from their representatives. The ability of political parties to curate their policy proposals and to select their candidates has been effectively eliminated by the empowerment of special interest groups. Excessively frequent elections impair the ability of Congress to pursue long term policies. And so forth. Our present system formerly functioned much better than it does today. In the past local political leaders controlled the parties and Congressmen were better known to their constituents. Many of them served in Congress for decades. Were our country to return to its former state, our government would be more functional.
I will give you my favorite pro democracy argument: we can easily imagine better political systems, but they are less resistant to transition towards autocracy.
The chinese oligarchy was exceptional in 1978-2012, but now it has been replaced by the absolute power of Xi Jinping. Democracy is a very robust popular belief, and it makes autocratic transition more difficult in democracy than in any small selectorate régimen.
This covers a lot of the same ground as Democracy For Realists, have you read it? Down to the natural experiments about how voters react to disasters like hurricanes or shark attacks in their district. I think the authors overstate their case somewhat (voters clearly have *some* idea of what policies get enacted), but their concluding chapter is pretty solid- democracy is best seen as a stabilizing & widely accepted method of peacefully transferring power. In practice its results are often not much different from just flipping a coin to decide who wins every 4 years, but citizens wouldn't broadly accept that. Democracy is not, however, necessarily the most efficient system of government.
I would echo what Arturo Macias says below- one could certainly create more efficient ways to run a country, but they inevitably tend to veer into autocracies. Just removing the moral aspect for a minute- autocracies are ultimately quite inefficient, so it's not a longterm stable solution
I did read it, and it has greatly shaped my views. I think there are some important differences. I would place "Democracy for Realists" very much on the "voters are always and everywhere" side of the debate. Achen and Bartels talk little about how elections are an efficient way to get generally capable, generally virtuous, generally influential people into political positions.
II would agree that a parliamentary system would work better than our present system, but our present system has specific defects that make it work poorly. First of all, our Congressional districts are too large. Few voters know their representatives personally and even by the reputation that they have among those who do know them. Thus, the belief that voters have in the expertise of their representatives is based entirely on the media image that they present. This in turn is under the control of a small minority of influencers. The expense of political campaigns for large districts is another factor distancing the voters from their representatives. The ability of political parties to curate their policy proposals and to select their candidates has been effectively eliminated by the empowerment of special interest groups. Excessively frequent elections impair the ability of Congress to pursue long term policies. And so forth. Our present system formerly functioned much better than it does today. In the past local political leaders controlled the parties and Congressmen were better known to their constituents. Many of them served in Congress for decades. Were our country to return to its former state, our government would be more functional.
I will give you my favorite pro democracy argument: we can easily imagine better political systems, but they are less resistant to transition towards autocracy.
The chinese oligarchy was exceptional in 1978-2012, but now it has been replaced by the absolute power of Xi Jinping. Democracy is a very robust popular belief, and it makes autocratic transition more difficult in democracy than in any small selectorate régimen.
This covers a lot of the same ground as Democracy For Realists, have you read it? Down to the natural experiments about how voters react to disasters like hurricanes or shark attacks in their district. I think the authors overstate their case somewhat (voters clearly have *some* idea of what policies get enacted), but their concluding chapter is pretty solid- democracy is best seen as a stabilizing & widely accepted method of peacefully transferring power. In practice its results are often not much different from just flipping a coin to decide who wins every 4 years, but citizens wouldn't broadly accept that. Democracy is not, however, necessarily the most efficient system of government.
I would echo what Arturo Macias says below- one could certainly create more efficient ways to run a country, but they inevitably tend to veer into autocracies. Just removing the moral aspect for a minute- autocracies are ultimately quite inefficient, so it's not a longterm stable solution
I did read it, and it has greatly shaped my views. I think there are some important differences. I would place "Democracy for Realists" very much on the "voters are always and everywhere" side of the debate. Achen and Bartels talk little about how elections are an efficient way to get generally capable, generally virtuous, generally influential people into political positions.