• ernestm
    1k
    I believe the answer has been known for 23 centuries, and I believe most politicians don't know this at all. But some will object to the following as reading between the lines too much, and maybe I am wrong about the ignorance. So I am posting here before submitting to a journal. I appreciate your views.

    While teaching Alexander the Great, Aristotle wrote one of the most powerful observations on the dynamics of a voting group established on the basis of equality for everyone. In a system where everyone has equal voting power, the rich APPEAR to have less power than the poor, because there are less rich people. But what Aristotle observed is an arithmetic progression that results in the rich having disproportionate power, even though they have less votes.

    Start by imagining you have 2 rich and 4 poor. One of the poor quickly realizes he can be more powerful by voting with the rich, creating a stalemate.

    Now, extrapolate!

    If there 2 rich and 6 poor, the poor realize they can split in two (2:3:3), and each poor group can partner either with the rich group or the other poor group to win (6:2 or 5:3). And the latter example can collapse into the first, because 1 guy realizes, again, he can switch groups to make a 4:4 split.

    As you may know, Aristotle was also the founder of logic and mathematics as we know it today. He was far more intelligent than his writings reveal on the surface. If you understand the way Aristotle thinks, you can see what he leaves unsaid.

    Further extrapolation, mathematically, makes the splits work up to about 100 people, after which it starts to break down. This is why, in fact, the US senate is purposefully small, so the splits work; whereas the congress is purposefully much larger, so they don't work so well. However, clever politicians can still exploit larger groups in the same way, by playing to the different interests of different groups of constituents, as often happens in USA's Presidential elections.

    With the splits, a system naturally evolves where the rich have disproportionally more power There are more poor, but being a larger group, they split into smaller groups each vieing for more power. However, the rich always vote in their own interests (Aristotle clearly knew that, but it was one of the things he did not directly say, because he did not want to alienate the rich patrons who were supporting him. There are many examples like that in Aristotle).

    So the rich have disproportionately more power, and there naturally evolves a tiny swing group, or even a single person, deciding most issues. And that's what's been happening in democracies since 600 BCE. It still happens, but these days, almost no one understands why. They just see it happening and take it for granted.

    People who play to the middle are often known as centrists. and they become more powerful individually, while diminishing the power of the party (Aristotle is a cynical realist, not an idealist). While those who are good at centrism become far more powerful than their constituents would warrant, it is a dangerous game playing to the center for personal benefit, because it lose support from the left base. Very few people have been really successful at it. Centrists have to know when to flip sides and play their cards very artfully, because as I say, the base has no idea what they are doing.

    Do you think all politicians should be required to read Aristotle? Maybe it would be a good idea. But Aristotle himself did not think so. He thought it better that people not know too much about how politics work, because otherwise they don't just act in the interests of their constituents and become too manipulative.

    It was one of the few beliefs Aristotle held which could really be wrong, because the opposite now happens so much. Aristotle did not know the power of modern propaganda techniques, which have continually advanced as media propagation technologies, such as the printing press, radio, TV, and Internet, have improved. Modern propaganda makes the opposite come true, where the ignorant are too easily manipulated by the knowledgeable.

    With the increase of propaganda's power in the last 30 years, centrists are now frequently Presidential candidates in the USA, including McCain, Lieberman, and the Libertarian party's Ron Paul; as well as Presidents now, like President Clinton.
  • BrianW
    999


    I believe if the following are answered then we stand a chance of uncovering the truth about power and motivation.

    1. Why do people (or a person) look to others for anything?

    2. Is the ideal interdependence an association of dependency or of independency?

    3. How much do we fear death/loss, or the solitude of individuality, or the shame we reflexively dispense to others to divert from our inadequacies and which shame we mask with layers of pride? Could we escape from the non-conformity to the ways of lusts and greed with which most fraternities are built upon?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    One of the poor quickly realizes he can be more powerful by voting with the richernestm

    That seems to come out of left field. First off, it assumes that people vote alike due to economic status (otherwise "voting with the rich" could be voting either way given two options). Secondly, just how would someone figure they'd have more power if they vote the same as someone else (where we're assuming the other group votes in unison)? Are we supposing voting publicly, so that one's vote is broadcast?
  • thedeadidea
    98
    You firstly have a shitty brochure... giving an as advertised fantasy preying on people's want and need to believe in anything, their instinctive compunction for certainty.

    Next, you have a very illusory way of manipulating institutions and bureaucracies so that it seems impersonal, part of the nature of things and the norms. The predates on synthetic happiness, people's infinite capacity to find some modicum of comfort even in hell.

    Next you extend your impersonal model for advantage by doing things like creating non-physical cashflow so even people who acquire more debt or pay petty bullshit admin charges etc that are quasi-legal it doesn't matter too much or as much to them because 'the thing' is not something they have ever seen or touched so the empirical validity is as a stranger... So you alienate value so one cannot empathize with it.

    Next, you have a large mechanism of systemic manipulation that functions outside of the democratic sphere such as lobbying and have your corporations your own centers of cumulative capital be considered people with the right form of legalese so you get all the representation you want and have the elected representatives working for you.

    Next, you manipulate the game via private/public mechanisms to stifle potential growth of competitors even to the extent of bringing legislation against yourself.

    You give distractions in the contemporary bread and circus
    Seize control distribution channels of media
    You set up the game so there is no accountability mechanism in place even the richest CEO needs to answer to the shareholders.

    Oh and no matter what anyone says or does you do not want intelligent people being listened to and definitely don't want unions....

    If you do the following you are well on your way to creating an IRL game of monopoly... Hardly everything, broad strokes of the brush and such but I don't think these premises are in any way groundbreaking innovations of critique, but just adequately address the question...

    Why does a single person or tiny group control a popular vote?

    Although Aristotle might contribute to a civics course I wouldn't just say read him is the answer....
    For one example is the answer he gave to why objects come to rest as opposed to what Science gives... Although surely a genius whose contributions a nobody like me will pale in comparison to 2300 years is a long time and some significant innovations have been made.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment