Something came up recently, where we were discussing the current economic decisions being made and their suitability and acceptance by a country's citizens. During the conversation it was mentioned that it was acceptable, because this is what the country voted for - which is true as a result, but not necessarily that true.
The reason it is not completely true, is because most democratic elections (between two major parties) are pretty close, with a small margin of a couple percent separating them. This means that there is a very large minority that is only slightly smaller than the majority, who voted the other way. Not only this, there are also generally a percentage of swing voters who could have voted either way, but ultimately made a decision - but that decision can change. And then of course in a country like the US, voter turnout is incredibly low considering what is at stake, and for 2024 was under 60% - that means that 40% of the population are unaccounted for as to how they feel, even though they will be affected by the decisions.
So, I don't think it is wise to say "the country chose this" because if looking at the numbers, it could very well be that had everyone voted, it might have been a landslide win the other way. It is very hard to tell, unless voting is at near 100%. And this means that the impact of decisions of the government are hard to gauge and how the different groups actually feel about them is near impossible.
But, I think that this is a common generalisation error, where for instance a country's culture is applied as if all citizens are the same, even though that is not the case. Yes, some broad statements might be true enough for some discussions, but they aren't necessarily true enough in a practical sense. For instance, when people talk about the culture in the US, are they talking about New York culture, or Mississippi culture? Southern California, or Idaho? In Australia which has been considered a cultural melting pot for decades, it doesn't mean that all people accept other cultures and races - there are plenty of racists there too, and it seems that with each year, more are coming out of the woodwork.
I am a great generaliser - not in the sense that I am great at it, but rather that I do it a lot. The reason is that while at an individual level I can take the space to judge the person, when talking about large populations and global issues, it just isn't practical to have that granularity. Even now, when I write about something in a general sense, it gets met with comments that mention the exceptions. There are always exceptions to generalisations on large groups, but if each is mentioned in every context, a book becomes endless.
Still, I think it is good to remember to consider how we generalise, even when we are talking about what we might know a lot about, like our own countries. It is very easy to fall prey to generalisations, especially when they seemingly support our own position on a topic. It is easy to think that "everyone thinks the same" because we are in the majority.
However, I think that the social culture is far more fragmented than we are led to believe, and while there might be majorities, it is unlikely that there are large majorities when looking at more specific topics, and personal non-negotiables. This means that when the meta changes, even though a majority voted for such reform to some degree, once the effects are felt, the majority splinters in their opinion.
Then what?
Well, I think I will get more into that later tonight, but in general, it is a bit like how "too many cooks spoil the broth" - a group that was operating somewhat well, can become dysfunctional to the point that it is harmful, which puts additional pressures on points where there might have been no focus earlier, and no reinforcement, and things break. And once the cracks start, they can run through the seams quickly, and be impossible to stop, and take a very, very long time to repair.
We are living in very interesting times where there is a lot of disruption caused by the tiniest of minorities, but it affects us all. What we should remember that generalising, the large majority of people just want to have a good life, no matter their culture or who is leading their country. If we hold that point in discussions, me might still disagree, but we are just approaching our wants from different angles. We can still have good conversations at the personal level - we don't have to take our communication cues from the attention seekers in the media.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
That's a really good point. Especially when you are considering the electoral college. We have seen instances where the popular vote went a totally different way than the actual election because of the electoral college. It's all a broken system anyway, but we at least hope it is fair and reasonable.
We can hope, but I don't think it is. I feel we shouldn't be voting for people or government at all, but rather for ideas and programs. The government should just be "the government" with roles picked based on suitability, like in a company. Those roles change depending on the programs supported. Blockchain and weighted voting would be super useful for this.
That is an interesting idea. I think it would be too far removed from where we are for most people to be able to handle it though.
Yeah, it is too out there for most I would assume, but it could be done in stages, where some parts are decided this way.
I'd be willing to see it attempted.
I think this is a deficiency of democracy. Even with %50 + 1 votes, they can rule the whole country in some countries which have the presidential system.
Yeah - democracy as a whole doesn't work, even when it is "working" because ultimately, it is based on opinions of the average, not the professionals.
Well, my hope is that the problem will fix itself. I believe the pendulum tends to swing too far to the left then too far to the right. This time it went too far to the right where people elected incompetent businessman who only was great in business on TV show.
What we see now is the result of putting that kind of person in power, it doesn't help that people who financed his campaign like Elon and Peter Thiel are after more money and power and will stop at nothing to line their pockets and engage in the anti-competitive practices. How did you like Trump turning the White house into a Tesla dealership and announcing that government will buy $400 million of armored Tesla trucks? :) Sounds like they might be backing out of that after the outcry, but who knows... and I am sure that will not be the last thing they do.
I think this whole mess will lead to people realizing that they have been fooled and the problem will correct itself in the next elections, but I might be too naïve
I'm a big fan of the Pendulum-Theory - but I think it does not swing that fast. There was a huge swing towards a number of topics that just got exaggerated in many ways, just as the reaction against it is exaggerated now. That doesn't go away in 4 years, it will take time for the pendulum to swing for the other way.
As for Tesla - I posted my own theory about that 😛 https://peakd.com/hive-180505/@beelzael/musk-is-playing-them-all
It’s so true, democracy doesn’t always reflect the will of the majority, especially with voter turnout so low. It's a mess right now, but I do believe people will start realizing that things don’t always work the way they were promised. Maybe next time, we’ll get some real change lol
The German election had a great turn-out - 80%! When I refer to election results, I prefer the somewhat complicated, but more exact formulation:
20% of 80% of the German voters (as an example)
20 percent of 80 percent wow 😳
That's an example on how I write it... it would be that 20% of 80% of the German voters voted for the AfD, in this case. I made a different example in a comment below :-)
oh ok 🤔
I watched Erin Burnett interview a US congressman about Trump's pardon of the January rioters and he said the people chose Trump as president. By 'the people' I think he must be talking about Trump voters and not the entire US. Generalisation happens all the time in politics and it can give the wrong impression sometimes.
I agree with you that generalising about political or cultural decisions is risky and simplistic. Often, as you rightly point out, majorities are not so broad or definitive, and interests within a nation are diverse. I think you are right to emphasise that, beyond superficial differences, the majority simply seeks to live well. I think it is key to remember this in order to avoid falling into excessive polarisation and to have constructive dialogues, even when our perspectives vary, which is common to our diversity.
It would make more sense to refer to voting outcomes as they really are.
85 Mio. people live in Germany. Of those, roughly 60 Million are allowed to vote, so around 70%. Of those 70%/60Mio., 80% voted, that is 48 Mio. or 55% (a little more).
28,5% of those voted for the CDU - but in the media, it is usually displayed as if 28,5% of Germans voted for them. But doing the math, it's only 13,5 Mio., or 16% of the population.
So, the truth would be: 16% of Germany's population voted for the CDU, which now is the strongest party in the German parliament. That's a big difference from 28,5%.