Excuse me, sirs, but — Is there a glitch in Democracy?
Democracy is the decision-taking method in which a group of people call on to a vote. The option to be chosen will be the one the ‘majority’ of the voters have selected. The method can be applied into any sort of query: It could be about who will get to manage our people. Or it can be about where should we go out to dinner — first world problems, I know.
Democracy is not a matter to be taken slightly. I mean — you’re probably thinking “this will be funny” and you’re going to laugh somewhere around the pages, and you can. Don’t get me wrong… life has taught me that laughter goes very — very well with mostly everything. Even with an antagonist concept such as democracy. But I just hope you get to laugh, or giggle around, and still think it’s a serious matter to reflect upon.
On a regular Monday, democracy decides whether a man gets to live in prison or gets to die by the needle. Every other Tuesday, democracy decides whether someone gets twenty-to-thirty for a crime he didn’t commit or just walks out not-guilty back to his wife’s arms. In a typical Wednesday democracy dictates whether the homosexual sex oriented person get to be free to be, or is sent to jail and not to be. On a Thursday, democracy allows women to have a public voice and hence a vote, or to remain forever silent in the place of public affairs. On a Friday morning, whether a young man can get a legal dose of marihuana on your nearest safest McDonalds, or just has to go deep into the darkest, most dangerous corners of the city to have an illegal piece of a joint, from the lowest-life crook. On a Saturday, if gay couples can adopt a lonely child suffering in the savannah’s of Africa, or to ponder eternally into the horizon ‘What would it feel to build a family ?’ And on a Sunday — on a Sunday, democracy is also the one to blame whether you and your friends go to another awful — awful movie, or you get to see that amazing movie you know it’s going to get you inspired to write some thoughts about ‘democracy’. So yes, like I’ve mentioned before: democracy is a serious matter not to be taking slightly.
Democracy, however, doesn’t dictate whether the ‘majority’ of the group has selected the right decision. Like ‘Yes! We’ve made the right choice of an awful movie!” No, Brian, definitely not the right decision…
The selected option by the vote just means the “majority” of the group believes this option was the proper one to be selected among all the options presented. The method — democracy — is then a good mechanism towards taking an accurate and fair decision upon a question. But as good as it sounds, democracy is not completely flawless:
In 2012 “socialist” president Hugo Chavez was re-elected for a third time in the Venezuelan elections, even though after showing dictatorship behaviors and leading Venezuela to economic and social deterioration.
The same year, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood was democratically elected president of Egypt. Immediately he made a referendum to change the current Egyptian constitution into a more — Islamist-Sharia Law constitution. “Homosexuality punished by death, adultery punished by death”… you know how it goes. The referendum was approved by approximately two thirds of the Egyptian voters. Luckily for the citizens the militaries made a coup and dethroned President Morsi.
In 2016, the United Kingdom democratically voted on a referendum to leave the European Union. An event widely known in history as “Brexit”.
And in 2007, Greenpeace held a name competition poll in the internet to name a humpback whale. The name “Mister Splashy Pants” won the competition with 78% of the votes.
There goes our beloved democracy…
And you could search for more cases where democracy has favored the “wrong side”. We would then argue that “some aren’t as bad you think” and “that’s what democracy is all about”, and “where are your sources at?”, and then I will answer back, and you’ll completely lose it and tell me “you don’t get it, do you?” and so on and so forth until reaching the Trump’s election subject. So let me stop you right there before we go down that rabbit hole and let me express: I’d rather prefer talking less about short-term trends, and more about widespread patterns presented in the whole history of human kind.
In other words, (check mate?) I’m not here to talk about punctual cases, or even less if they were “the best choice for the benefit of society.” I’m here to pin-point about the glitch bad men have been using to win a democratic election. Without working. Without struggling. And without all those hard tasks progress requires them to do.
The glitch is fairly simple: Bad men focus their campaigns on the less cost-effective types of voters, the uneducated and the money-junkies.
The uneducated, are those who have a whole for a brain and still believe in things like: “black people are a lesser race”, “woman belong in the kitchen”, “climate change can be easily solved by buying a bigger fan”, and “homosexuality is a dangerous pathogen.”
The money-junkies, on the other hand, are those individuals who are willing to sell their kids to the highest bidder — nanny included. They’re not necessarily rich, or necessarily poor. It is less of a socioeconomic issue and more of a moral-values subject. Giving you the answer to why you keep tapping into these guys anywhere on society.
Now let me be thorough about it and make out an example on how the glitch has been properly executed by bad men to win over the elections. In this case — for joyful matters — let’s assume you’re an evil-doer man focused on personal interests rather than what’s best for the people.
Let’s say you have a room filled with ten individuals. Count your fingers…and ten. These ten individuals represent the total voting population of the country. Of these ten men, three of them (three fingers) are uneducated. Another three of them (three fingers) are money-junkies. And the four remaining (fingers) are those smart men who want the best for the whole group.
Now let’s head down to campaign and find a way to win the elections.
The uneducated — the first three — lack the proper technical education to know where the country is, what the country needs, and mostly every subject there is to discuss towards the benefit of the group. So using rationality, arguments, and facts as tools-of-persuasion will be useless. They’ll probably won’t understand what you’re saying and blame you with arrogant behavior to avoid thinking they’re actually the idiots to blame.
So that leave us with the only tool to use of emotion. Meaning that to win their votes you must focus more on the hows, and less on the what’s: Form over content. Emotion over reason.
As a guide-to-follow, you must be like that Zohner fourteen-year-old kid who convinced forty-three out of fifty students to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) substances from his school. Stating the chemical can “cause suffocation and corrosion”, and other stuff like “it’s a major part of acid rain.”
“Now what does Dihydrogen Monoxide is and what does it has to do with my three votes, man?”
Well — Dihydrogen Monixide is an unorthodox chemical way of calling our, H-two-common-Oh, water by. So, yeah…focus on the how’s and you will win those votes to your side no matter what you’re selling. Even if it’s an unprepared man as yourself, or as incoherent as banning common water.
Don’t feel ready to sway them? Well here are some additional pointers to help you out:
- Use some actual trends, since trends are something people can (a) easily relate to and (b) get easily distracted by;
- create a catchy powerful campaign slogan that inspires them into an ambiguous future;
- promote popular rural projects, avoid high-tech, and skill-required projects; make lobby with some local celebrities (not international) so they see you as a person who is “from the people and for the people.”
All done? Great. Let us go now with our three votes and conquer our next type of voters.
With the money-junkies — the other three — the strategy is fairly evident. Just hire a good lobbyist to find out what is their superficial Aquile’s heel. It may be a high sum of money, a seat in office, public contracts, a part of the country’s budget, or some land.
But beware now…
These guys may be over-the-line shameless so expect that some might even ask for all five… And you will agree to those five if needed. You will indeed agree to anything they ask as long as they vote for you. Because after you’ve been elected it won’t matter, giving you the edge of being able to promise things you won’t deliver. Making their disability, your own advantage in the future.
Like if you have one million dollars to offer to the three— offer the complete million to each. Don’t divide the number by three. No... When you get elected you’ll explain you can only deliver one third of what was promised. You’ll boldly and respectfully go back on your word. You’re and evil-doer; why would you believe on the importance of such things as ‘honesty’ and ‘commitment’? Forget about those two values for now… Besides, what else can they do but accept the money after you’ve been elected? Undo their vote? Yeah, right. Can’t do that now, chump. And hey… Thank you for your vote.
With the biggest group of four, which are the smart, academic, honest individuals concerned about the best for the population, things are fairly more difficult in terms of money, energy, and time. They’re very cost-effective compared to the other two groups. They would require relatively a lot money, energy and time, for you to obtain their votes. You would have to work a plenty. Invest a lot. Produce a lot for society. And then, probably spend most of your time on the follow-up indicators of education, security and public infrastructure.
“All this in order to gain only four votes? Working long hours? Investing all my money? Aging myself rapidly?”
Well — you could eventually consider politics as a passion?
Or maybe not.
So let me insist these guys won’t be fond of you from the beginning. And I don’t blame them. It is rather hard to hide your intentions. But we could try…
So let’s begin our game by marking them in the society as the ‘bad guys’ of the story by giving them a negative name in the media like ‘The Angry Opposition’. Yes, that sounds just evil-ish enough.
Next, let’s try to distract them as much as possible so they don’t start swaying our other two groups into the right voting decision. So bomb an important building, create a war with a barbaric country, or spread a zombie disease in the middle of NYC. Whatever you choose to do, try making it as national and widespread as possible. Because we want this guys so distracted and so unfocused they don’t have the time, or the resources to sway the other two groups into voting for the right choice: Not you.
So election day finally arrives.
And everybody has made their vote.
We wait in suspense.
And guess what? We won!
Wow, I’m so proud of you.
Six out of ten have elected an egocentric-lazy-crook. And you’ve been elected democratically. So… it’s totally legal and fair.
“Wow I deserve all of this, I’ve work so hard for it.”
No, you’re still everything what’s wrong in society. Now for my own sake, let’s please end our example right there. I don’t want simulations giving me additional reality headaches.
And let’s just focus on what we have to do to solve the glitch.
Now there are two possible solutions to patch the glitch, one more plausibly than the other.
Our first option is fairly simple: Solve the glitch by solving the causality of the problem. That is, solve what’s started it all: Education.
The existence of the uneducated and the money-junkies in society, is merely a consequence from the emptiness of technical and moral education in certain individuals. The problem is probably caused from the unequal distribution of the two types of education in the total population: One, technical education, creating the uneducated who don’t know what’s better for the world; and two, values and moral education, creating the money-junkies who rely solely on what’s material to find happiness and personal satisfaction.
Our first solution will required injecting education into these types of individuals, while trying to keep both types of education as equally distributed as possible in the total growing population. To solve the causality and reduced the emptiness in individuals may be a long-term process. But the faster we execute it, the more accurate the decisions will be in the system.
Our second option is more of a — futuristic proposal. It involves solving the glitch, by giving proper weight to each vote. Those who know what’s best for the country will have 2 or 3 votes, rather than 1. And those who know less will have 0.2 or 0 of a vote, rather than 1. Giving an individual the weight of his vote depending on individual performance: morality, intellect, values, abilities, and so on and so forth.
But to be able to execute this dense method, the state must first have the capacity to track the performance of each individual over the period of his existence. It’s another long-term task, but it’s still is an option to tip the scale of democracy’s towards a less margin of error when choosing options.
Both option may have their followers. But most important they encourage us on reflecting on a proper solutions to patch the glitch and make it troublesome for those with bad faith to cheat on democracy.
But to define which one is the best to apply — I’d prefer calling it to a vote.