"I don’t know if the screamers are aware of the d-word’s meaning, or if they’re even using it that way. The postmodern Left deploys language as a shapeshifting weapon, like the cop-monster from Terminator 2. Maybe they don’t even care what they mean by “democracy” in any given moment. Maybe it all translates to some version of “Shut up.”"
I see your point, but it still has a bit of "real democracy has never been tried" energy.
In our present advanced state of civil collapse it's a recipe for stochastic terrorism, which you acknowledge, but then suggest we try something better next time. There are plenty of ideas about how to mitigate democracy's worst tendencies, and how to fix voting systems in particular, that only work in a "next time."
We could theorycraft those all day, but why do we need a next time in the first place? The last time the world tried various experiments in large-scale/institutionalized democracy it went so badly that nobody tried it again for almost a thousand years.
I think the real solution to dealing with divergent cultures is to allow them to separate into distinct polities, not to look for ways to make their struggles for dominance more "fair" or less violent or dishonest.
We all know what's happening here. We've got multiple groups of people with fundamentally incompatible values, narratives, and visions for the future. They've already self-segregated territoriality, which is a first step in this natural process. The next step is to cleave off into separate political bodies.
This used to be easier when there was a vast amount of unclaimed territory for people to break off into, if a bid for rebellion failed. But we don't have that option now, and won't again unless/until space colonization opens up, so we have to take one of the other two options: allow for peaceful secession and unification as needed so that things can re-balance; or war, whether directly or by proxy through imperial politics. The latter, unless one group achieves a swift and decisive victory, ends with everyone losing and ending up doing the former by default after much suffering and loss. There's no way to make the latter fair, no system that can make the losing party feel less aggrieved.
But after it's done, each new polity will adopt the methods of governance that suit them best, and hopefully proceed in good faith for at least a few generations. No particular system will allow them to recapitulate the democratic empire experiment more successfully. As before, as now, the only outcome when they reach the point of factional conflict will be to break up, either peacefully or destructively.
Sunshine disinfects as we used to say, before we were told to huddle indoors in fear from viruses.(I don't remember St. Anthony telling us to leave the lights and the heat off but it was implied.) I appreciate the three level thinking: An honest secret ballot is better than a corrupt secret ballot but an open ballot is better than either.
But what would be better than any of the options is just to draw a name out of a hat. Actually, my preferred solution is to draw it out of about 7 hats. I would start with the names of the 50 states in the Federal hat. Then the names of each county or municipality in the State Hat. Then go down to a district or town level or something. Then a street level then a house level. Cheating would require massive coordination. You couldn't just cheat at one level because then you might get completely the opposite result at the next level. But the greatest boon would be that there would be no mistake of being chosen based on talent or likability or any virtue that you might possess. The leader would possess the humility of being unqualified and the confidence and sense of responsibility of being divinely chosen.(we'd also be able to pay off the national debt with what we save in campaigning.)
Elections have never been anything other than a cartel choice. We have simply gone from an educated, intelligent, socially responsible cartel to a suicidal/misanthropic cartel.(as well as the nominal cartel now being run by a shadow cartel) To make elections a good way to run the country the entire cartel would have to be replaced. And if you are getting rid of the cartel the only reason to replace it with another cartel is if you expect to be in it. I don't expect to be so I am agin it.
I agree with the sentiment of the article and the desire to "fix" voting but I doubt the utility of it.
The critique against anonymous votes is nothing new. Lysander Spooner was writing about secret ballots back in 1867. An excerpt:
"As all the different votes are given secretly (by secret ballot), there is no legal means of knowing, from the votes themselves, who votes for, and who against, the Constitution. Therefore, voting affords no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution. And where there can be no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution, it cannot legally be said that anybody supports it. It is clearly impossible to have any legal proof of the intentions of large numbers of men, where there can be no legal proof of the intentions of any particular one of them."
While I agree that elimining the secret ballot is likely preferable to our current system, I question whether voting is a useful concept for deciding societal issues at all.
Even assuming voting is useful, making ballots public will just slightly change the game. Under democracy, there is ALWAYS the desire to game the system. And where there is incentive, there is action.
You say that the Left has crossed the Rubicon, i think its time for the Right to also cross and admit that voting is a failed concept. It seems a complete myth to think that voting "works". Even Abraham Lincoln, often hailed as the hero of Democracy by both sides, had his own pseudo paramilitary to manipulate and coerce votes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Awakes).
Democracy is just a facade over what is actually the truth, and quite frankly, always has been. A small minority of elite, those that command the most power, actually run things. Even in your essay, when you say that a potential downside to public ballots is the threat of violence and retribution, seems to just further prove that's it's those that command violence that actually run things.
This is further shown when you say that public voting would likely completely fail giving our current atmosphere and that other policies and societal shifts are a perquisite. In actual terms what is this prequite? The actual prequisite is the Right taking power and establishing the society necessary, by force and using power. As an example, fixing voting and crime are both problems easily solved. But they are not fixible because the existing power structure does not want them fixed.
Only once that order is achieved that the conditions to allow voting occur. Ironically though, its the expansion of voting and democracy that deconstructs the very prequistes needed for that type of society.
This is the end result of the game theoretical realities first outlined in David Brin’s The Transparent Society, and is pretty much the only way to preserve the legitimacy of voting.
Anyone with a knowledge of election history knows that EVERY election is stolen when secret ballots are done. It is a sham method that was cracked by electioneers almost as soon as it was invented, and then all those hackery methods were perfected by the CIA as it spread democracy as a way to control the allegiance of vassal governments during the 20th century.
I'm not in your camp politically (I am currently in no camp), and I wish the article were a bit less partisan, but you ar, nonetheless, entirely correct on your main argument, and you make the argument well.
From my most emphatically non-Christian perspective, re. Dominion voting; any local Catholic church has D.O.M. plastered across the highest point of the entrance for dominion (over all), dominus (master) and deo optimo maximo. The latter means 'The Greatest God' which refers to the Christian god Jupiter. Saturn's Synagogal 'Elite' are arguably worse but it tells the curious what they need to know about our dodgy overseers playing games on the global stage until the clock runs out. Voting imho is still a democratic process but the majority is never right (see vax uptake.) Democracy is being dismantled before our eyes in the English speaking world, I'd lay €50 on it.
As for www: Urbit. If it is not *the* answer to the net issue yet, it is at least *an* answer. From what little I understand it's the future of the internet. Happy to be corrected by anyone who knows more!
With open voting records, the regime will know exactly who and where their enemies are!
My answer to this:
They already do.
Stop kidding yourself."
I feel the same way about all the gun world boomers opposed to registration legislation. I've seen what you post on facebook, google knows what websites you visit, and visa knows what you've been buying. De facto registration is already here and your notion of privacy died 20 years ago. They may not know precisely what arms you possess and they may not know exactly which candidates you voted for but you're certainly marked as a person of interest either way.
Accepting that the state and its affiliated organs already know more about you than your spouse seems like a necessary precondition for changing the relationship between those organs and the general population. On that basis I think your idea has theoretical merit but there is absolutely no chance of any of the involved parties being willing to shed light on their manufactured elections system. Forcing that probably means a shooting war and whatever comes out the other side of that isn't going to resemble the current United States in a multitude of ways that are impossible to forecast.
One day voting with paper ballots makes secret ballots OK. Extended absentee balloting, no.
There is a compromise position: secret ballots for those who vote in person with ID on election day. Absentee ballots, not secret.
Also, absentee ballots need to be counted BEFORE election day.
As for the valid address issue, we do have this thing called a Social Security number. The technology exists to make sure the same SSN isn't used in more than one precinct.
One theory of voting is that it is a proxy for military strength, and thus a way to resolve conflicts in proxy without going hot. The victors have to be fairly magnanimous for it work and willing to relinquish power in turn, if the votes turn against them. Under this theory open or closed ballots serve equally well - if you have to act a certain way out of fear, that side would also have power to draft you or compel taxes out of you if civil war broke out.
One of my forecasts is a return to feudalims, largely organized through corporate fiefdoms; which creates the weird image in my head of gangs of Nike-clad young men biting their thumbs at their opponents swathed in Reebok. A bit too weird and jarring even for Futurama; and yet historical forces being what they may, feudalism seems inevitable, and I don't see any other protective force for peasants aside from corporations. Combine it with naked voting, and it starts to make a bit more sense. Not only that, it actually starts to sound pretty fun. Imagine having the opportunity for a street melee with the idiots who support a green tax?
Besides, I've never understood the importance of a secret vote. People really ought to be held accountable personally for whom they vote for.
Right so the same people who constantly try to dox and cancel us for expressing dissident opinions can also cancel people for voting for dissident candidates.
The voting machines would be enough by themselves, but they may or may not be necessary. Take them away and we still are left with:
1. Roughly 80 million unsolicited mail-in ballots(2020). Expect a similar number in 2024
2. Ballot drop boxes in all the major cities, with well documented 2am-4am bulk-drops. See the film 2000 Mules
3. A standing army of highly paid election workers in the swing states, a kind of seasonal work force that is now trained and knows exactly what to do, and when to do it.
4. Voter ID requirements, that, when a photo is actually required, a photo of your dog will do.
5. Voting month not voting day in ALL the swing states and most of the others. This is a crucial feature because it provides the data and the requisite time to make the necessary “adjustments” to the vote tallies when and where required.
6. Voting machines with opaque and demonstrably hackable software that are connected to the internet
My guess would be that even if you dropped # 6 from the list the job could still get done.
Pure poetry.
Especially this paragraph.
"I don’t know if the screamers are aware of the d-word’s meaning, or if they’re even using it that way. The postmodern Left deploys language as a shapeshifting weapon, like the cop-monster from Terminator 2. Maybe they don’t even care what they mean by “democracy” in any given moment. Maybe it all translates to some version of “Shut up.”"
I see your point, but it still has a bit of "real democracy has never been tried" energy.
In our present advanced state of civil collapse it's a recipe for stochastic terrorism, which you acknowledge, but then suggest we try something better next time. There are plenty of ideas about how to mitigate democracy's worst tendencies, and how to fix voting systems in particular, that only work in a "next time."
We could theorycraft those all day, but why do we need a next time in the first place? The last time the world tried various experiments in large-scale/institutionalized democracy it went so badly that nobody tried it again for almost a thousand years.
I think the real solution to dealing with divergent cultures is to allow them to separate into distinct polities, not to look for ways to make their struggles for dominance more "fair" or less violent or dishonest.
We all know what's happening here. We've got multiple groups of people with fundamentally incompatible values, narratives, and visions for the future. They've already self-segregated territoriality, which is a first step in this natural process. The next step is to cleave off into separate political bodies.
This used to be easier when there was a vast amount of unclaimed territory for people to break off into, if a bid for rebellion failed. But we don't have that option now, and won't again unless/until space colonization opens up, so we have to take one of the other two options: allow for peaceful secession and unification as needed so that things can re-balance; or war, whether directly or by proxy through imperial politics. The latter, unless one group achieves a swift and decisive victory, ends with everyone losing and ending up doing the former by default after much suffering and loss. There's no way to make the latter fair, no system that can make the losing party feel less aggrieved.
But after it's done, each new polity will adopt the methods of governance that suit them best, and hopefully proceed in good faith for at least a few generations. No particular system will allow them to recapitulate the democratic empire experiment more successfully. As before, as now, the only outcome when they reach the point of factional conflict will be to break up, either peacefully or destructively.
Or TL;DR: Balkanization is not a bad word.
Sunshine disinfects as we used to say, before we were told to huddle indoors in fear from viruses.(I don't remember St. Anthony telling us to leave the lights and the heat off but it was implied.) I appreciate the three level thinking: An honest secret ballot is better than a corrupt secret ballot but an open ballot is better than either.
But what would be better than any of the options is just to draw a name out of a hat. Actually, my preferred solution is to draw it out of about 7 hats. I would start with the names of the 50 states in the Federal hat. Then the names of each county or municipality in the State Hat. Then go down to a district or town level or something. Then a street level then a house level. Cheating would require massive coordination. You couldn't just cheat at one level because then you might get completely the opposite result at the next level. But the greatest boon would be that there would be no mistake of being chosen based on talent or likability or any virtue that you might possess. The leader would possess the humility of being unqualified and the confidence and sense of responsibility of being divinely chosen.(we'd also be able to pay off the national debt with what we save in campaigning.)
Elections have never been anything other than a cartel choice. We have simply gone from an educated, intelligent, socially responsible cartel to a suicidal/misanthropic cartel.(as well as the nominal cartel now being run by a shadow cartel) To make elections a good way to run the country the entire cartel would have to be replaced. And if you are getting rid of the cartel the only reason to replace it with another cartel is if you expect to be in it. I don't expect to be so I am agin it.
Couple thoughts.
I agree with the sentiment of the article and the desire to "fix" voting but I doubt the utility of it.
The critique against anonymous votes is nothing new. Lysander Spooner was writing about secret ballots back in 1867. An excerpt:
"As all the different votes are given secretly (by secret ballot), there is no legal means of knowing, from the votes themselves, who votes for, and who against, the Constitution. Therefore, voting affords no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution. And where there can be no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution, it cannot legally be said that anybody supports it. It is clearly impossible to have any legal proof of the intentions of large numbers of men, where there can be no legal proof of the intentions of any particular one of them."
While I agree that elimining the secret ballot is likely preferable to our current system, I question whether voting is a useful concept for deciding societal issues at all.
Even assuming voting is useful, making ballots public will just slightly change the game. Under democracy, there is ALWAYS the desire to game the system. And where there is incentive, there is action.
You say that the Left has crossed the Rubicon, i think its time for the Right to also cross and admit that voting is a failed concept. It seems a complete myth to think that voting "works". Even Abraham Lincoln, often hailed as the hero of Democracy by both sides, had his own pseudo paramilitary to manipulate and coerce votes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Awakes).
Democracy is just a facade over what is actually the truth, and quite frankly, always has been. A small minority of elite, those that command the most power, actually run things. Even in your essay, when you say that a potential downside to public ballots is the threat of violence and retribution, seems to just further prove that's it's those that command violence that actually run things.
This is further shown when you say that public voting would likely completely fail giving our current atmosphere and that other policies and societal shifts are a perquisite. In actual terms what is this prequite? The actual prequisite is the Right taking power and establishing the society necessary, by force and using power. As an example, fixing voting and crime are both problems easily solved. But they are not fixible because the existing power structure does not want them fixed.
Only once that order is achieved that the conditions to allow voting occur. Ironically though, its the expansion of voting and democracy that deconstructs the very prequistes needed for that type of society.
This is the end result of the game theoretical realities first outlined in David Brin’s The Transparent Society, and is pretty much the only way to preserve the legitimacy of voting.
Anyone with a knowledge of election history knows that EVERY election is stolen when secret ballots are done. It is a sham method that was cracked by electioneers almost as soon as it was invented, and then all those hackery methods were perfected by the CIA as it spread democracy as a way to control the allegiance of vassal governments during the 20th century.
I'm not in your camp politically (I am currently in no camp), and I wish the article were a bit less partisan, but you ar, nonetheless, entirely correct on your main argument, and you make the argument well.
Blockchain
From my most emphatically non-Christian perspective, re. Dominion voting; any local Catholic church has D.O.M. plastered across the highest point of the entrance for dominion (over all), dominus (master) and deo optimo maximo. The latter means 'The Greatest God' which refers to the Christian god Jupiter. Saturn's Synagogal 'Elite' are arguably worse but it tells the curious what they need to know about our dodgy overseers playing games on the global stage until the clock runs out. Voting imho is still a democratic process but the majority is never right (see vax uptake.) Democracy is being dismantled before our eyes in the English speaking world, I'd lay €50 on it.
As for www: Urbit. If it is not *the* answer to the net issue yet, it is at least *an* answer. From what little I understand it's the future of the internet. Happy to be corrected by anyone who knows more!
"I know what some of you are thinking.
But Mark, you’re ignoring the obvious!
With open voting records, the regime will know exactly who and where their enemies are!
My answer to this:
They already do.
Stop kidding yourself."
I feel the same way about all the gun world boomers opposed to registration legislation. I've seen what you post on facebook, google knows what websites you visit, and visa knows what you've been buying. De facto registration is already here and your notion of privacy died 20 years ago. They may not know precisely what arms you possess and they may not know exactly which candidates you voted for but you're certainly marked as a person of interest either way.
Accepting that the state and its affiliated organs already know more about you than your spouse seems like a necessary precondition for changing the relationship between those organs and the general population. On that basis I think your idea has theoretical merit but there is absolutely no chance of any of the involved parties being willing to shed light on their manufactured elections system. Forcing that probably means a shooting war and whatever comes out the other side of that isn't going to resemble the current United States in a multitude of ways that are impossible to forecast.
Excellent article! Agree wholeheartedly.
One day voting with paper ballots makes secret ballots OK. Extended absentee balloting, no.
There is a compromise position: secret ballots for those who vote in person with ID on election day. Absentee ballots, not secret.
Also, absentee ballots need to be counted BEFORE election day.
As for the valid address issue, we do have this thing called a Social Security number. The technology exists to make sure the same SSN isn't used in more than one precinct.
One theory of voting is that it is a proxy for military strength, and thus a way to resolve conflicts in proxy without going hot. The victors have to be fairly magnanimous for it work and willing to relinquish power in turn, if the votes turn against them. Under this theory open or closed ballots serve equally well - if you have to act a certain way out of fear, that side would also have power to draft you or compel taxes out of you if civil war broke out.
One of my forecasts is a return to feudalims, largely organized through corporate fiefdoms; which creates the weird image in my head of gangs of Nike-clad young men biting their thumbs at their opponents swathed in Reebok. A bit too weird and jarring even for Futurama; and yet historical forces being what they may, feudalism seems inevitable, and I don't see any other protective force for peasants aside from corporations. Combine it with naked voting, and it starts to make a bit more sense. Not only that, it actually starts to sound pretty fun. Imagine having the opportunity for a street melee with the idiots who support a green tax?
Besides, I've never understood the importance of a secret vote. People really ought to be held accountable personally for whom they vote for.
Right so the same people who constantly try to dox and cancel us for expressing dissident opinions can also cancel people for voting for dissident candidates.
Seriously, have you been compromised?
Mark,
The voting machines would be enough by themselves, but they may or may not be necessary. Take them away and we still are left with:
1. Roughly 80 million unsolicited mail-in ballots(2020). Expect a similar number in 2024
2. Ballot drop boxes in all the major cities, with well documented 2am-4am bulk-drops. See the film 2000 Mules
3. A standing army of highly paid election workers in the swing states, a kind of seasonal work force that is now trained and knows exactly what to do, and when to do it.
4. Voter ID requirements, that, when a photo is actually required, a photo of your dog will do.
5. Voting month not voting day in ALL the swing states and most of the others. This is a crucial feature because it provides the data and the requisite time to make the necessary “adjustments” to the vote tallies when and where required.
6. Voting machines with opaque and demonstrably hackable software that are connected to the internet
My guess would be that even if you dropped # 6 from the list the job could still get done.