Getting back to democracy and related issues. In this blog, I will opine on a rather local issue. Voting for the President of the US in Massachusetts.
The US is a federal system with distributed power shared among the states. For the most part states can set their own laws so long as they don't contradict the Constitution. Inter-state commerce and related activity is governed by the federal government and so on. States have their priorities that may differ from other states. States come in various sizes, small and large. It may be obvious that larger states in the absence of any laws can influence smaller states, inequalities may prevail. Thus the framers of the US constitution made provisions to provide some "fairness" in the governance of the nation. For example, a bicarmel legislature with the Senate providing equality for the states no matter what size and the House of Representatives having representation bases on population.
And so it is with the election of the President. In the US, technically, the states elect the president not the people. Which in my opinion works just fine. The Electoral College is a set of representatives from each state that casts ballots for the President. How the representatives vote is totally dependent on state laws. In some cases, in most, all the electoral votes go to the winner in that state. In other states, the electoral votes are divided based on the vote of the population, so if 60% of the people vote for Candidate A, the Candidate A gets 60% of the electoral votes for that state. And obviously there may be other ways of selecting the votes of the electoral college for a state.
Why is this fair, at least in my opinion? It allows power sharing among the diversity of the nation. Consider the example of a state the has the majority of the population of the nation, say for example California, then during a presidential election all activity would be focused on one state, they rest of the country would become irrelevant. While the dominance of one state may not be realistic, the dominance of several states is realistic. Consider, California, Texas and New York, these states can dominate a presidential elections. Thus people living in much smaller states essentially have very little impact on the election.
This is where the electoral college comes in. Each state has votes proportional to the population of that state. More populous states have more votes, less populous states have less votes. But, and this is important, no state or a few states have enough votes to dominate an election. The election of the President of the United States is a country-wide event. All regions have input into the selection of the President.
So we come to Massachusetts. A couple of years ago a law was passed whereby all the electoral college votes from Massachusetts will go to the candidate who has the most votes in the country. To me this means that Massachusetts is making itself irrelevant in a Presidential election. From a personnel perspective, mine, why bother voting if you live in Massachusetts. The electoral college votes from Massachusetts are determined by the rest of the country not by the good citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Is this democracy at work? I certainly don't think so. At best it is a good example of rational thinking gone awry. Let's hope that the good people of the Massachusetts legislature come to their senses and change the law so that we, citizens of Massachusetts, again have impact on Presidential elections.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Democracy
One notion that has always fascinated me is the nature of democracy. Like many abstract philosophical items, everyone has an opinion but no one has a clear definition. Clearly, one of the main aspects of democracy is voting. So be it. But is voting the main prerequisite for democracy? Voting for what? Was the US a democratic country when slavery was allowed? When women could not vote? Is a nation democratic when only a percentage of the population can vote?
I won't have clear cut answers, just a list of observations and I welcome feedback.
While not a definitive source, wikipedia does have interesting text. Accordingly,
"While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution."
Let us recall that Plato, going back to the birth of democracy in Greece, was not very fond of democracy. He called it the rule of the mob, meaning that democracy very much controlled not by rational thinking but immediate emotional responses. In other words you elect people who look nice and tell you what you want to hear.
Clearly democracy seems to entail people electing a set of representatives to govern them, along with a chief administrator be it a president or a prime minister. Leaders are not institutionalized, meaning they are not like kings where the leader is a heriditary positions. Leaders are not bound by family name to be next in line.
So why is this interesting?
Currently there are some interesting elections that will occur in the near future. The most publicized are the US and Russia. Of course there are many other elections occurring due to the Arab Spring manifestations. Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, all electing leaders through a mostly untampered process. Furthermore, the financial crisis in Europe has developed into a philosophical debate about democracy and capitalism.
In a recent article in the Atlantic, the notion of democracy in the EU is questioned
With the financial crisis, the debt crisis, and the worldwide coverage of Occupy Wall Street, capitalism has been under fire publicly for quite some time in Europe. Since the debt crisis started to show real potential for damaging the euro zone, both the euro and the European Union have had their futures dissected as well. The question has been this: can the European federal project survive the debt crisis? But now, that question is being repeated with a more melodramatic substitution: can democracy survive the debt crisis?
One of my objections is the notion that capitalism and democracy are somehow joined at the hip. I believe you cam have a market-driven economy without democracy and similarly you can have democracy without capitalism. And in any case desperate times require desperate measures. Thus in times of crisis why not appoint leaders that are best suited for the job. And when a sense of normality returns have elections and restore democratic process with the hopeful understanding that people learn through adversity and would elect smarter leaders.
So we will see how all this plays out in the next few months. I'm certainly curious how the Russian elections play out, how much support Putin will actually get. Especially interested in the US elections, who the Republicans select. And Egypt, what kind of democracy can exists in a country dominated by religion. Not too long ago, nationalism and socialism was dominating the so-called third world, now it's religion.
Anyway, enough for now more to come. This is a very broad and interesting topic, and certainly of very immediate concern.
I won't have clear cut answers, just a list of observations and I welcome feedback.
While not a definitive source, wikipedia does have interesting text. Accordingly,
"While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution."
Let us recall that Plato, going back to the birth of democracy in Greece, was not very fond of democracy. He called it the rule of the mob, meaning that democracy very much controlled not by rational thinking but immediate emotional responses. In other words you elect people who look nice and tell you what you want to hear.
Clearly democracy seems to entail people electing a set of representatives to govern them, along with a chief administrator be it a president or a prime minister. Leaders are not institutionalized, meaning they are not like kings where the leader is a heriditary positions. Leaders are not bound by family name to be next in line.
So why is this interesting?
Currently there are some interesting elections that will occur in the near future. The most publicized are the US and Russia. Of course there are many other elections occurring due to the Arab Spring manifestations. Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, all electing leaders through a mostly untampered process. Furthermore, the financial crisis in Europe has developed into a philosophical debate about democracy and capitalism.
In a recent article in the Atlantic, the notion of democracy in the EU is questioned
With the financial crisis, the debt crisis, and the worldwide coverage of Occupy Wall Street, capitalism has been under fire publicly for quite some time in Europe. Since the debt crisis started to show real potential for damaging the euro zone, both the euro and the European Union have had their futures dissected as well. The question has been this: can the European federal project survive the debt crisis? But now, that question is being repeated with a more melodramatic substitution: can democracy survive the debt crisis?
One of my objections is the notion that capitalism and democracy are somehow joined at the hip. I believe you cam have a market-driven economy without democracy and similarly you can have democracy without capitalism. And in any case desperate times require desperate measures. Thus in times of crisis why not appoint leaders that are best suited for the job. And when a sense of normality returns have elections and restore democratic process with the hopeful understanding that people learn through adversity and would elect smarter leaders.
So we will see how all this plays out in the next few months. I'm certainly curious how the Russian elections play out, how much support Putin will actually get. Especially interested in the US elections, who the Republicans select. And Egypt, what kind of democracy can exists in a country dominated by religion. Not too long ago, nationalism and socialism was dominating the so-called third world, now it's religion.
Anyway, enough for now more to come. This is a very broad and interesting topic, and certainly of very immediate concern.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Another version of MAD?
During the Cold War, yes remember the Cold War, a time of peace and stability in comparison to today's "age of crises", a philosophy emerged regarding superpower politics. Known as MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), this policy prevented all out nuclear war by acknowledging the fact any attack by one country no matter how destructive would be matched in kind by the other country. Thus since there could never be a clear winner in a conflict, peace was achieved.
And now to the present.
Israel is acquiring 3 more submarines from Germany, for a total of 5 of these type of vessels. These Dolphin-class submarines are supposedly capable of firing missiles with nuclear capability. No doubt that this provides Israel with more insurance regarding any existential threat.
There is presumably one major threat to Israel currently, that being Iran. With Iran threating Israel, the concept of a more localized MAD starts making sense. Presumably, Iran is not irrational when dealing with its own survival, so with a multi-submarine threat Iran would not be so bold as to launch any missiles. On the other hand, diatribes by either side should not confuse the issue of actually taking any irreversible courses of action by either side. Talk as much as you want, but don't push any buttons.
Of course this brings us to a more fundamental question, given the proliferation of very sophisticated weapons systems, will the concept of a localized MAD philosophy proliferate to other regions. Rather then fighting a conventional war, nations will refrain from fighting simply because of mutual self-destruction? Can MAD work between nations of varying size? Can a much smaller nation prevent a larger nation from actions beneficial to the larger nation? In a world of cheap and available WMDs that may be the case.
And now to the present.
Israel is acquiring 3 more submarines from Germany, for a total of 5 of these type of vessels. These Dolphin-class submarines are supposedly capable of firing missiles with nuclear capability. No doubt that this provides Israel with more insurance regarding any existential threat.
There is presumably one major threat to Israel currently, that being Iran. With Iran threating Israel, the concept of a more localized MAD starts making sense. Presumably, Iran is not irrational when dealing with its own survival, so with a multi-submarine threat Iran would not be so bold as to launch any missiles. On the other hand, diatribes by either side should not confuse the issue of actually taking any irreversible courses of action by either side. Talk as much as you want, but don't push any buttons.
Of course this brings us to a more fundamental question, given the proliferation of very sophisticated weapons systems, will the concept of a localized MAD philosophy proliferate to other regions. Rather then fighting a conventional war, nations will refrain from fighting simply because of mutual self-destruction? Can MAD work between nations of varying size? Can a much smaller nation prevent a larger nation from actions beneficial to the larger nation? In a world of cheap and available WMDs that may be the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)