That would be a political question

[andrewducker]

Taking for (vague) definitions:
A democratic system increases the amount that the will of the people matters.
An effective system is one that puts smart/informed in charge to make things happen.
A system that maximises freedom enshrines certain rights so that they can't be changed even if the people don't like them.

Which would you prefer the system to prioritise?

[Poll #1824202]

At the moment we in the UK obviously have a hotch-potch. Representative democracy means that we elect (theoretically) informed people to one chamber to carry out our wishes, within a framework laid down by human rights legislation. And we also appoint people to a second chamber to make sure the first lot are doing their job well. Given that the democracy for the house of commons is demonstrably rubbish, and the democracy in the House Of Lords is basically lacking, our system clearly priorities effectiveness over democracy, with a side-order of whining that we're forced to obey any human rights legislation at all.

Comments

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

Different in different contexts.

I do love this structure, though. It's not perfect but it's a big step forward from the way that this problem is mostly framed. If more people thought about this question, we'd have a much higher quality of conversation.

The related question that I've been thinking about a lot recently is what should be the priority in guiding policy formation: local practicality (what will solve the real problem that real people have) or adherence to values / principles (whatever they may be). Again clearly this varies with context, and is a both-and rather than an either-or. It's not always a direct trade-off, and each route has advantages and problems. But I think that a clear preference is needed. I've not yet decided where I'm voting.

[nmg.livejournal.com]

I'd maximise the combination of all three, obviously.

The exact proportions of the combination would be determined by smart and informed people (after considering the will of the people) and would be enshrined such that they could not subsequently be changed.

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

Even if the circumstances changed sufficiently that the proportions no longer maximised the combination?

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

The question is ill-posed, as the variables are not independent.

[nmg.livejournal.com]

I have sufficiently smart and informed people for that not to be a concern.

[rosamicula.livejournal.com]

I think the question was somewhat unhelpfully phrased. I am also wary of ticking 'freedom' which I think of a list of alienable rights, because it seemed to be implicitly linked to the Europen Human Rights legislation, which is completely ineffective, and which we seemed to be much more reluctant to override or ignore than other member states.

[drplokta]

If freedom includes freedom to elect our representatives, then one cannot maximise freedom without also maximising democracy.

[spacelem.livejournal.com]

I like the idea of freedom. In theory, the system in US was set up by the founding fathers so that the majority could not oppress the minority, and could not vote on their human rights. I like this concept. Sadly the current batch of Republicans really don't care for this state of affairs.

I like the idea of effectiveness. The system is better run when people understand how it works, and can predict the repurcussions of changes (to a degree, some things really are very difficult for anyone to predict).

I like the idea of democracy. Nobody should remain unheard, even if their views are anathema to everyone else's, they should have the right to express those views (unless those views advocate taking human rights away from others -- see freedom).

As for which one is best? I'm not sure. I think effectiveness trumps democracy, but freedom is not necessarily lost or gained simply by shifting funding around, which is pretty much what effectiveness will do. Consequently, I'm going to tentatively choose effectiveness, assuming that it's unlikely to trample over freedom too much.

One aspect of democracy is that people have the right to campaign, protest, write to their MPs etc., and I suspect (with no evidence whatsoever) that exercising these rights is probably worth considerably more than any single vote you might get once every few years.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Utility, of course!

Efficiency and freedom are both terminal values with diminishing marginal utility, so sacrificing one for the other will tend to have lower utility than trying for both incompletely.

Democracy is important only in so far as it tends to increase the other two; undemocratic systems tend be even worse on freedom and fairness than democratic systems, and unfairness is inefficient because resources have diminishing marginal utility.

[artkouros.livejournal.com]

I'm a fan of representative democracy. We just haven't been able to figure out how to make it work yet.

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

:-)

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

I voted for effective, but that's only if the smart/informed people are broadly-speaking 'good'. Since you couldn't guarantee this, in practice I'd probably go for democracy as the best compromise.

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

What happens when people can't agree on the measures of what is useful?

[makyo.livejournal.com]

the democracy in the House Of Lords is basically lacking
I'd argue that it's not noticeably more lacking than in the Commons, and at least the Lords contains a high proportion of people who know what they're talking about, as well as being more diverse and representative of the population as a whole. But then I'd also dispute that the current electoral system is democratic in any useful sense anyway.

I think (and this will probably not surprise you from similar conversations we've had in the past, especially regarding Lords reform) that I'd probably prioritise effectiveness and freedom over democracy: as long as the government is doing things in an effective manner for the collective good and isn't oppressing the citizens (by means of stuff like large biometric databases, detention without trial, etc) then I don't mind so much if I don't actually get much of a say in who's in charge or exactly what they're doing. I only need to stick my personal oar in when the people in charge are infringing on freedom and/or making a general pig's ear of the whole thing. Which, sadly, has been the case for at least the last four decades and shows no sign of improving any time soon.

(Where this all falls down is that we currently have an undemocratic government cobbled together from a bunch of also-rans with no expertise, competence or life experience outside a narrow party-political arena, who are infringing civil liberties left, right and centre, and who are being pretty ineffective at sorting out the various problems that face the country right now.)

[alitheapipkin.livejournal.com]

I think freedom should give people the right to healthcare, education, justice etc and therefore requires a certain level of effectiveness. I'm a big fan of representative democracy - the will of the mob should not override the right to justice though. I couldn't honestly pick democracy first given I don't think we should have the death penalty back even if a majority of the public do/did want it.

[andrewducker]

we currently have an undemocratic government cobbled together from a bunch of also-rans with no expertise, competence or life experience outside a narrow party-political arena, who are infringing civil liberties left, right and centre, and who are being pretty ineffective at sorting out the various problems that face the country right now

So, the same as every government for the last 50 years?

[andrewducker]

Yeah, democracy is a good way of reminding governments that if they annoy too many people then they'll be replaced with someone less annoying.

[andrewducker]

Let us assume then, that implicit in the terms of the poll is the idea that that particular freedom is considered separately.

[alitheapipkin.livejournal.com]

If this comment had been up before I started writing mine, I'd have just said "this". Well put.

[andrewducker]

In society variables are very rarely independent. That doesn't mean you can't prefer one of them to others, taking into account their intertwined nature.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I think a system that truly worked would maximise all of these.

I don’t think there are *necessarily* trade-offs between the three dimensions. I don’t think that more democracy necessarily means reduced effectiveness.

Defective production is worse than no production at all.

So if you have a system that delivers people who are effective at getting things done (maximising effectiveness) but what they get done is not what is wanted (democratic) then that’s a fail. You might as well have had idiots running things because they would have failed to do unwanted things.

More subtly, a system that maximise democracy (or the tyranny of the mob) but which doesn’t safeguard some fundamental positions for all means that no one can rely on having the basic ability to participate in democracy.

Generally, I see the three elements as being more often re-enforcing than in opposition.

Also, I think there are some other dimensions that are important. Chief amongst these is the issue of subsidiarity.

[andrewducker]

I don’t think that more democracy necessarily means reduced effectiveness.

http://www.livescience.com/18706-people-smart-democracy.html

[makyo.livejournal.com]

So, the same as every government for the last 50 years?
Yes, except that this one's even worse than usual - nobody actually voted for the "Coalition Party that will enact sweeping legislation that wasn't discussed in any of their individual manifesto documents".

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I don't think I understand what you're getting at. In any democracy what will happen is what happens at the moment - people will campaign, lobby etc. But I think you're trying to get at some problem with the way I've set out my preferences above, and I'm not sure what problem you're trying to get to - can you try stating it a different way, at greater length? Thanks!

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

What I inferred from what you wrote (which may of course have been erroneous) was that there exists a definition of utility, or perhaps a set of measures of utility, towards which one ought to work. I was thinking that people often disagree on what is most useful, and wondering how you would want that to be resolved.