Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Peter Gerdes's avatar

Part of the problem is one feature people often believe is desirable for a political system to be resistant to sudden unconsidered change. Indeed, I think that legitimacy (say as measured by just asking a poll) of the US governmental system is substantially increased by people's sense that it is very difficult to change certain aspects of the system.

All you need to believe to make this compelling is that either people are vulnerable to fads they would be disabused of on further reflection or (I think you'll find more persuasive) that there is some non-trivial error term in what voters choose.

This ultimately boils down to the point that as a matter of fact (at least in the US with constitution worship) people don't seem to support this kind of system so, on your own definition, it would seem to reduce not increase legitimacy.

Expand full comment
dagon_net's avatar

Sure, I don't have opinions on what people what to hear, only on what equilibria are likely to be selected for.

I mostly believe that this level of signaling happens primarily on non-legible dimensions, and neither party is clear on what they actually want.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts