[EM] Re: meaning of democracy

[Dr.Ernie Prabhakar]

Hi Ralph,

I too was struck by Steve Eppley's quote, so I'm glad you commented on 
it:

On Sep 20, 2004, at 9:19 AM, RLSuter at aol.com wrote:

>> Democracy is not about being fair to each
>> voter, as one member of this list recently asserted
>> during our discussion of the electoral college; it's
>> about aligning the incentives of society's leaders
>> with the well-being of the people.
>
> That's debatable as well.

Its certainly debatable, but I side with Steve on this one.  It may be 
slightly off topic, but I think it perfectly appropriate -- even 
necessary -- that we occasionally ask the question "What exactly is an 
election method supposed to optimize?"  At some point we need 
meta-criteria for determining which criteria are relevant, right?

> My preferred definition of democracy is "rule by all of the
> people," which requires (ideally, at least) that all people
> have equal collective decisionmaking power, or equal
> power to participate and determine the outcome of
> collective decisions about matters they care about and
> that affect them.

It may be heretical to say it, but I don't think that's a useful 
definition.  "Equality" is one of those verbal fictions that is 
essential in principle, but unworkable in practice.   I prefer the idea 
of global optimality, as in:

The purpose of democracy is to
justly optimize liberty across all the people
by establishing incentives to:
	i) perceptively prioritize issues of the people
	ii) creatively develop ideas by the people
	iii) wisely make decisions for the people

This is also an ideal, of course, but I believe a more actionable one.

>  I suspect  some forms of oligarchy or even monarchy would do a better 
> job than some forms
> of democracy of "aligning the incentives of society's leaders with the 
> well-being of the people."

I think that misses the point; non-democratic systems fail precisely 
because they are more vulnerable to systematic misalignment. As I (and 
Steve, I trust) see it, the point of democracy is that it is only 
possible to address the needs, thoughts, and interests of the people if 
the leaders are in fact accountable to all the people.

However, the goal is not simply to allow everyone to have a voice 
(though that's important as a starting point), but rather to allow the 
*best* ideas to surface and be enacted.   That's the hard part, and 
what I believe we should be focusing on rather than 'mere' equality.  
All views are equally valid, but not equally accurate.  I too want 
democracy to have the widest possible net, but only in order to catch 
the best possible fish.

-- Ernie P.

P.S.  I made that same point somewhat more explicitly in my 'radical 
bicameralism' dialogue posted earlier, which is now available online:  
<http://radicalcentrism.org/reengineer_legislature.html>.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D. <DrErnie at RadicalCentrism.org>
RadicalCentrism.org is a tiny little think tank near Sacramento, 
California, dedicated to developing and promoting the ideals of 
Reality, Character, Community and Humility as expressed in our Radical 
Centrist Manifesto: Ground Rules of Civil Society 
<http://RadicalCentrism.org/manifesto.html>