Timeline for What electoral mechanisms might prevent the rise of a demagogue?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 6, 2018 at 0:07 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Feb 6, 2018 at 5:15 | |||||
| S May 18, 2017 at 19:56 | history | suggested | Jacob | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Raise should be rise
|
| May 18, 2017 at 19:19 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 18, 2017 at 19:56 | |||||
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:54 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://politics.stackexchange.com/ with https://politics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 26, 2017 at 11:46 | comment | added | gerrit | Any system where you have an institution which is able to overrule a democratic vote of the electorate is by definition undemocratic. This interpretation of democracy is overly narrow and rather reminiscent of ochlocracy. There is nothing undemocratic about having a constitutional court or rules that changes in the constitution have additional requirements such as a ⅔ majority. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 8:28 | comment | added | MrLore | @DavidGrinberg The politicians that the OP likes will decide that, I thought that was the whole point of this question? | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 7:51 | comment | added | The_Sympathizer | @David Grinberg: Simple -- the ones who actually have constructed the models of thinking that have proven themselves to generate actual close-to-truth answers about the real world, that is, the scientific method and logic and the methods of rational skepticism and critical thinking. You are teaching method, how to think not what to think and the habit of thinking. Also, there are no tests established to make you vote. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 7:47 | comment | added | The_Sympathizer | @user4012: (cont'd) doesn't mean "therefore what exists now is the best possible". | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 7:47 | comment | added | The_Sympathizer | @user4012: Cognitive bias cannot be eliminated entirely from anyone -- the point is to minimize it as much as possible. To get as many people as possible to be skeptically/critically-minded thinkers. It does not have to be 100%. It just has to be enough that a majority, or even getting "close enough to cause a technicality" is much less likely to happen. (It would not have taken a great deal of extra votes to have prevented Trump from winning.) No, it won't bar demagogues entirely, or anything else for that matter. Nothing can be perfect, but "nothing is perfect" (cont'd) | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 20:08 | comment | added | T.E.D. | At this risk of Godwining this, I believe the experience of the Weimar Republic with the Nazi party shows that proportional representation is no protection whatsoever from this. It arguably made things easier for the hopeful demagogue, as he only needed enough votes to become the largest party, which was far less than a majority. | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 18:03 | history | edited | Philipp♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 229 characters in body
|
| Jan 25, 2017 at 17:39 | history | edited | Philipp♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 25, 2017 at 17:33 | history | edited | Philipp♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 15 characters in body
|
| Jan 25, 2017 at 17:32 | comment | added | Philipp♦ | Comment cleanup. Please try to address the answer directly. Why you voted for whom in the 2016 US presidency election is not really relevant. | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 17:27 | history | edited | Philipp♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Jan 25, 2017 at 16:35 | history | edited | Philipp♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 255 characters in body
|
| Jan 25, 2017 at 16:27 | comment | added | David says Reinstate Monica | Option #2 is literally impossible because (1) Who defines what a better political education is? (2) This is very close to having education tests for voters (aka blanket ability to discriminate against whoever you want). | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 16:26 | history | edited | Philipp♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 473 characters in body
|
| Jan 25, 2017 at 16:20 | history | edited | Philipp♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 473 characters in body
|
| Jan 25, 2017 at 16:06 | comment | added | SJuan76 | @user4012 about 2), the final election day is just the end of a lengthy electoral process; if voters are better educated and use that education all through the process a demagogue should be stopped earlier in the process (so, for a party supporter it would not be end as [My demagogue] vs [candidate from other party], because [My demagogue] would have been voted out in the primaries; in these primaries such a voter would have the option to vote for other candidates more ideologically acceptable). | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 15:56 | comment | added | user4012 | The problem with the second bullet point is that it's a good idea in theory but not usable in practice for two different reasons: (1) various cognitive biases would counteract your education from working when populist politically aligns with someone; (2) and conscious tactical choices would ensure that even those who are able to work around cognitive biases would still vote for that populist if they are aligned. You don't seriously think that 100% of Trump voters honestly believe very word he says, I hope? | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 15:53 | history | answered | Philipp♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |