Hacker News Reader

Comment by andybak | Hacker News Reader

> most voters don't agree with them

Replace 'most' with 'a slender majority' if you want to retain the fig-leaf of objectivity and rationality that you seem to covet.

Politics is littered with examples of groups who were deceived into voting against their own self-interest. This isn't some kind of bizarre conspiracy - it's business as usual. It strikes me as more bizarre to pretend that democracy is some kind of idealized machine that extracts considered, rational decisions from large aggregates of people. It never was and never has been. It's simply the "least worst"[1] way of choosing our leaders.

[1] https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government

View on HN

I am not here to defend Democracy or 'the system'. In fact I noticed the fallback to those fundamental critique comes always up when one's own favorite did lose. How the voting system works has been known for decades. It is the job of politicians and all those trying to shape the public opinion to convince people to vote.

> In fact I noticed the fallback to those fundamental critique comes always up when one's own favorite did lose.

Of course. We have vested interest in complaining when we 'lose' and praising the outcome when we 'win'.

But your original post seemed to be dismissive of the idea that there is anything to be worried about. Even if we agree on the existence of a major cognitive bias here - it's irrelevant to the question of whether there is a real issue that should be addressed.

The problem with a "backdoor in democracy" is similar to the problem with cryptography backdoors. You can't control who'll make use of them so everyone should be scared.

It is similar to the US campaign finance reform - if you want to spend money for your candidate you will always find a way to do it. For me it is much more surprising why so little money has been funneled into EU elections so far.

Maybe they thought they were invulnerable.

>Replace 'most' with 'a slender majority' if you want to retain the fig-leaf of objectivity and rationality that you seem to covet

Would the argument still hold water if he did ?

> Politics is littered with examples of groups who were deceived into voting against their own self-interest. This isn't some kind of bizarre conspiracy - it's business as usual. It strikes me as more bizarre to pretend that democracy is some kind of idealized machine that extracts considered, rational decisions from large aggregates of people

Tell that to the leftists in US who go around shouting that Trump lost the popular vote

> Would the argument still hold water if he did ?

Do you mean mine or his? I think his argument would lose some rhetorical force and be much less persuasive. If you mean something else then please clarify as I don't quite follow.

> Tell that to the leftists in US who go around shouting that Trump lost the popular vote

I'm not sure how the existence of that group is relevant here. Surely if anything they underscore my point from the other side of the fence?

I'm not claiming "this only happens to the side I disagree with" if that's what you're implying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com