Excellent chapter. We are indoctrinated to believe that elections are the antidote to tribalism, when really they thrive on it. The reference to the UN’s United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes the point perfectly as to how deep the problem lies. Thank you Mr Bouricius for spelling it out so clearly.
I hope there will be a connection made between winner-take-all with its baleful consequence of tribalism and majority vote. Politics is in some sense war by other means, the big difference being that we think we have a consensus on how to resolve our conflicts, which is to count up the people/citizens/voters on each side and the higher (or highest) number wins. In other words, consensus on a process leads to a resolution of the conflict. Trump’s attempt to destroy popular consensus for the process is what puts American democracy at such risk. If we can’t sustain a consensus about elections, will there be a consensus for some other way of resolving conflicts?
I think Terry would say that we don’t have consensus that elections or majority or plurality decisions are legitimate democracy. As long as you have the possibility that a few or even a significant amount of the population have their way at the expense of many others, you lose democracy. Elections are good tools for that way of doing politics. I think he believes that sortition and calm consideration of issues can be actual democracy, though he admits that it will take time to transition to this way of doing politics even if there is consensus on the idea. If the 2024 national elections go bad, then there might be some consensus on a change, but somehow I doubt it.
Excellent chapter. We are indoctrinated to believe that elections are the antidote to tribalism, when really they thrive on it. The reference to the UN’s United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes the point perfectly as to how deep the problem lies. Thank you Mr Bouricius for spelling it out so clearly.
I hope there will be a connection made between winner-take-all with its baleful consequence of tribalism and majority vote. Politics is in some sense war by other means, the big difference being that we think we have a consensus on how to resolve our conflicts, which is to count up the people/citizens/voters on each side and the higher (or highest) number wins. In other words, consensus on a process leads to a resolution of the conflict. Trump’s attempt to destroy popular consensus for the process is what puts American democracy at such risk. If we can’t sustain a consensus about elections, will there be a consensus for some other way of resolving conflicts?
I think Terry would say that we don’t have consensus that elections or majority or plurality decisions are legitimate democracy. As long as you have the possibility that a few or even a significant amount of the population have their way at the expense of many others, you lose democracy. Elections are good tools for that way of doing politics. I think he believes that sortition and calm consideration of issues can be actual democracy, though he admits that it will take time to transition to this way of doing politics even if there is consensus on the idea. If the 2024 national elections go bad, then there might be some consensus on a change, but somehow I doubt it.