390
The history of electoralism (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
81 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
Greek philosophers in 300 BC: Hey, so electoralism is a rigged game, because only wealthy and prestigious families have enough money to finance the popularity contest to get themselves or their puppet candidates elected. Marxists in the 1800s: Electoralism is a rigged game. Capitalists stack every election with their puppets. Political power is subservient to economic power. Liberals in the 2020s: No, electoralism has never worked. But it might work for us this time.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -8 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Your use of "work" is doing a lot of heavy lifting and is very reductive. I'd recommend reading theory until you properly understand the issue, Dessalines.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Is your "theory" originating from three letter organisations or have you never actually read it yourself?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    See, the problem with Dessalines' meme is that it uses "work" as a binary category. As in, something either has no effect or it completely restructures society. It is absolutely true that electoralism can't completely restructure society, and there are many valid explanations for why that is in communist theory. However, Dessalines reveals his lack of understanding by equating completely restructuring society with "working".

    If we were to construct a true binary between working and not working, it would be between having zero effect, and having any effect, no matter how small. The beating of a butterfly's wings has some effect on the world, and could theoretically contribute towards a tornado that sucks up all the bourgeoisie and allows the workers to democratise the means of production. So obviously voting has some tiny effect, since it's stronger than a butterfly's wings. Voting works, in other words. But that's a virtually meaningless statement if we're constructing a binary as Dessalines did.

    The correct approach is to ask "how much can voting accomplish", and with that question we can actually arrive at an answer with some nuance and a justification from within the theory. But the binary question Dessalines asks can afford no nuance, and is obviously not supported by theory or anything else. Which proves that even if Dessalines read theory, he didn't understand much of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    I think the fundamental issue is that "works" doesn't have a good measurable metric and so when discussing it tends to fall into that false binary that you correctly identified.

    The best I've seen that attempts to work around this problem was this paper from back in 2014^1^. Unfortunately their results showed that while you're correct that causitive impact is not zero that <5% correlation, especially for a field with as high a signal/noise ratio as political science, is an incredibly disheartening answer for "how much can voting accomplish?"

    So while you are likely correct that it's not nothing, it does suggest reality is much closer to the meme than your attempt at "nuance".

    If you have any sources that cite measurable and non-anecdotal impact that tell a different story I'd love to read them.

    ^1 linking the preprint because it's not paywalled^

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Closer than my attempt at nuance? I didn't know I made an attempt at nuance yet. I thought I just vaguely gestured towards the nuance and said it exists. Can you please explain what my position is on how much I think voting can accomplish so I'm all caught up with the conversation?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The correct approach is to ask "how much can voting accomplish", and with that question we can actually arrive at an answer with some nuance

    I'm with you here, you're "just asking questions" and I provided context on my understanding of the answers to those questions.

    But the binary question Dessalines asks can afford no nuance, and is obviously not supported by theory or anything else.

    A "theory" is a reductionist model that is falsifiable, by claiming that the level of nuance you suggest proves Dessalines understanding is "not supported by theory" you explicitly state that nuance as an empirical contradiction of the theory.

    Either: A. You have some measure or metric which wasn't clearly communicated showing how that nuance falsifies the theory. ^Which was my initial understanding and was hoping to clear up the miscommunication there.^

    B. You're doing a tiresome argument from ignorance thing and simply muddying the waters because the "theory" conflicts with your pre-formulated understanding of reality and you haven't put in any effort to actually validate your own understandings.

    You claim, rather rudely I might add, that "Even if Dessalines read theory, he didn't understand much of it." Don't do the glib, spineless, two-faced "I didn't make any claims yet".

    Prove it pot, say it with your chest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Lmao I read that whole entire comment, and it wasn't easy, and it's all frantic backpedaling.

    For the record I think the study you're citing makes a methodological mistake by applying an issues based measurement framework in a representative democracy, but I have no intention of elaborating because you're not arguing in good faith and you're just going to waste everyone's time.

    Anyway next time post the version of the study that actually passed peer review and got published, not a draft.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    it's all frantic backpedaling.

    Kettle

    I think the study you're citing makes a methodological mistake by applying an issues based measurement framework in a representative democracy

    I don't necessarily disagree. It's definitely not a holistic view, but I haven't found much else that even asks that question much less has any real methodology behind it. Have you?

    What would be the correct methodology in your opinion?

    I have no intention of elaborating

    You're not communicating anything other than the vaguest of concern trolling. You clearly have thoughts and opinions, this is a place to share those.

    You can't both be upset when you are misunderstand and refuse to communicate.

    Quit backpedaling and say it with your chest.

    Anyway next time post the version of the study that actually passed peer review and got published, not a draft.

    You do know how to use sci-hub right? You have the title, or if you're morally opposed to that option a quick Google and you can pay $30 here for it.

    However, before you gish-gallop into concern trolling the source I linked why don't you provide one, or multiple, of your own that supports the concerns you have surrounding "nuance".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)