Consistency is the recipe of getting an okay-ish state that lasts a long time, given a voting population that also happens to create prosperous societies. Generally, the sort of people (Europeans) who have created prosperous civilizations have also been the philanthropic (in the literal sense) types to believe in democratic reform. So, of course democracies are going to appear more stable over the course of history, but it's possible that this and maybe some other confounding variables explain it away.
Problems arise when parties begin winning not based on the small shifts in consistency as a response to overall negative feelings, but due to certain demographic (or participation) shifts which increase the size of one consistent voter bloc independent of the political mood. There are a few ways in which this is currently happening in the modern west, I don't think I need to explain them. This is just one of many problems with democratic states that there isn't really any built-in immune system for because it is an issue that takes several election cycles to happen (and making election cycles longer leads to its own negative consequences).
So, yes, centralized democracy is probably better than deciding issues by chance over the long-run and averaged across many countries, but it is probably worse (in my opinion) than either very decentralized democratic confederations, or feudal monarchies. Especially if you just make a few tweaks to the monarchical system which encourage some top-notch selection. Don't do the whole political marriages thing, instead just pick an "elite human capital" chick from your own country. Don't do male primogeniture, instead just pick your smartest son (which, given how much kids monarchs have, and a moderate amount of variance in sibling intelligence, is likely to be reasonably high). And, don't do the absolutism thing (there has to be *some* moderating force -- in this case, some aristocrats willing to usurp a lazy and incompetent king).
This isn't even mentioning the simpler option of "democracy but only for tax-surplus males who can pass a literacy test"
So you went from only one or so percent of the population are capable of political thought to democratic voters being rational as a whole to own Keith Woods? 🤡
No I'm working on stuff regarding political agency. I think voters can be modeled as very high time preference and political agency is essentially political time preference (at least the first component). Voters are not very intelligent but they are mostly consistent.
You can be rational yet still make bad / sub optimal choices. There is a big difference between someone making random moves and making bad moves. A person that is making bad moves will consider proposed moves from a better player.
He was talking about political consistency not agency, did you even read his post?
You can have a democracy with poor outcomes regarding performance and leadership, but if the voting patterns are stable that outcome will remain constant, just take a look at some economic graphs of the U.S from the past century or so.
Consistency is the recipe of getting an okay-ish state that lasts a long time, given a voting population that also happens to create prosperous societies. Generally, the sort of people (Europeans) who have created prosperous civilizations have also been the philanthropic (in the literal sense) types to believe in democratic reform. So, of course democracies are going to appear more stable over the course of history, but it's possible that this and maybe some other confounding variables explain it away.
Problems arise when parties begin winning not based on the small shifts in consistency as a response to overall negative feelings, but due to certain demographic (or participation) shifts which increase the size of one consistent voter bloc independent of the political mood. There are a few ways in which this is currently happening in the modern west, I don't think I need to explain them. This is just one of many problems with democratic states that there isn't really any built-in immune system for because it is an issue that takes several election cycles to happen (and making election cycles longer leads to its own negative consequences).
So, yes, centralized democracy is probably better than deciding issues by chance over the long-run and averaged across many countries, but it is probably worse (in my opinion) than either very decentralized democratic confederations, or feudal monarchies. Especially if you just make a few tweaks to the monarchical system which encourage some top-notch selection. Don't do the whole political marriages thing, instead just pick an "elite human capital" chick from your own country. Don't do male primogeniture, instead just pick your smartest son (which, given how much kids monarchs have, and a moderate amount of variance in sibling intelligence, is likely to be reasonably high). And, don't do the absolutism thing (there has to be *some* moderating force -- in this case, some aristocrats willing to usurp a lazy and incompetent king).
This isn't even mentioning the simpler option of "democracy but only for tax-surplus males who can pass a literacy test"
So you went from only one or so percent of the population are capable of political thought to democratic voters being rational as a whole to own Keith Woods? 🤡
No I'm working on stuff regarding political agency. I think voters can be modeled as very high time preference and political agency is essentially political time preference (at least the first component). Voters are not very intelligent but they are mostly consistent.
So essentially that most people aren’t capable of voting with any other motivations than immediate self interest, no?
Hoppe talks about this
You can be rational yet still make bad / sub optimal choices. There is a big difference between someone making random moves and making bad moves. A person that is making bad moves will consider proposed moves from a better player.
He was talking about political consistency not agency, did you even read his post?
You can have a democracy with poor outcomes regarding performance and leadership, but if the voting patterns are stable that outcome will remain constant, just take a look at some economic graphs of the U.S from the past century or so.
So democracy is based. Shit.
No reference here to Bryan Caplan's 'The Myth of the Rational Voter'?
Democracy is responsive in a very limited sense. The reality is that, per Robert Michels, democracy is subject to the Iron Law of Oligarchy.