According to the book I recently read, the answer is: "Yes, with a high correlation." While the thesis was interesting I don't know how correlated it actually is. It may be more of an effect of a empire rather than a cause of an empire.
Anyway I was in the store the other day and saw this book called, 'Day of Empire' on the shelf. I have been reading a lot of rise and fall of empire books recently, especially since I read 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond. What struck me about this book and is primarily why I purchased it was the treatment of non-western empires. Honestly I am beyond tired of the shelves and shelves of western histories about the most trivial part of european history. I have look long and hard for good goods about India, Africa, and China. While this book didn't provide any kind of in depth review of those topics it did provide an overview of a couple of empires in those areas which was what I was looking for.
The content of the book revolved around the thesis that empires rise because they are tolerant or relatively tolerant and fall when they close their borders and persecute the minorities in their mist. I don't think the thesis was a stretch nor well supported. I think the book revolved around a more pop-culture approach to the subject matter. I would have preferred a more complete approach and less 'accessible' book to the average person. I think that hampered the book.
Those that have read my reviews before know I always put in my reviews a words per dollar or per page. While the word per a page wasn't great the new content to me per a page was high as I previously said. The dissection of various empires that I knew little about was helpful and illustrative. The book was written as a graduate thesis which had its premise, support, and conclusion. It was refreshing to read a well thought out book if not completely satisfying in other respects. However as I said the support left some to be desired.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Elections in the United States : Part 1
This article will focus on the selection of the candidates and pros and cons of the current system. Further articles in this series will be forthcoming as the content is finished.
We are almost 3 years advanced from when the last presidential election began for those campaigning. (Some could argue that the election cycle started with Hilary's last senate bid as she rose a significant amount of money for an almost assured senate win.) Looking back at this point should provide some clarity that we can apply to future elections. For the duration of this article I will not be discussing the validity of political parties, gerrymandering, or the quality of candidates but instead I will try to dissect the last cycle and what it says about the system. I will in the future discuss the last election cycle in regards to the candidates in the future.
What are the more important lessons from the last election in the eyes of a young voter who finally was interested in politics? Basically the take away lesson is that the political process does not raise up politicians which energize the electorate. You may think this is odd given that Obama ran in the last election and by most counts energized the young vote in a way that hasn't happened in a while? Well the problem with that is that Obama is/was a super-star and the 'in thing' has a large draw on young people. As a passive test I have asked various friends of mine to name Obama's policies during the election or to state their agreement with various policies that Obama stated he would support once in office. In the former case the results were fairly laughable (though not scientific) and in the latter a surprising amount of people stated that they did not agree with various policies (again not a scientific result).
However this is not to discuss the election of Obama nor the 'super-star' status of our current president. What I would like to point out is the primary process. Now a LOT can be written about this and has however I will focus on one thing : the turn-out during the primary and why it is important. My thesis is thus : 'The primary elections (in the early primaries and caucuses) provide an opportunity for the voter to more accurately choose a representative of their views. This however is hampered by low-turnout and in the main election the voters lose their ability to choose the better of all evils.' (With the caveat that in the last election 'I' think the choice was not between two evils but two people I didn't completely agree with.)
How does this this manifest itself? In the primaries there are two type of primaries, closed and open. In a closed primary the voter must be a member of that political party to vote. The primary process is meant to have the state political parties select their voting representatives to the party's convention. (The conventions in this day and age are mostly redundant from a selection of the candidate perspective, however historically they had a huge impact, for an interesting read : 'Team of Rivals' by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Lincoln's national convention was definitely not determined before hand.) So in one respect the primary voting serves a specific and appropriate position.
In an open primary, a voter can choose the party who's primary they will vote in. This allows for a more interesting vote from a game perspective. If you think your choice will win their party's nomination then voting in the other primary for a weaker contender would be a more impactful vote. In fact this has been known to happen. However the voter is at least given the choice to vote for the most amiable person despite party preference. However if a candidate running is completely different than the party they are running for the nomination, they could still garner a significant number of votes. This provides systemic risk for the parties running the primary. So which is the better choice? In one system you have to be a member of the party to vote for your choice and in the other the party is left to outside forces. While the party could nullify a state's representatives this would never happen. So what is the best option? How could the system be more transparent to the will of the people?
The first answer is a completely open system which implements instant-runoff voting. This would significant hurt the power of the current duopoly in the government and so is likely to not work. Why is this better? This would allow for everyone to vote for whom they want regardless of political affiliation. (I will discuss instant run-off voting in another post.) What is needed is a system where the people running for political office is open to all people and not biased against independents but also allows for political parties.
there is one state which has implemented something different for all state offices. The election is in two steps. The first step allows the voters to choose their top two candidates (a process that is not required in an instant runoff system). Then these two candidates run in the actual election regardless of their political affiliation. In fact political affliction could be anything. This would tap into the momentum of having a candidate who more accurately reflects the voter's preference but also allows for situations where a party just doesn't put forward individuals who are palatable to the voters. This current system also dissuades the majority of voters from being interested in the system once their candidate is out. (This is definitely an indictment of these voters and their lack of caring but it also shows that the system fails these people.)
The problem with the current system is the system enforces a voting procedure which only helps the political parties in power which is unhelpful and unresponsive to the voter. However in any discussion it should be stated that all systems have risks and problems no matter how much they try to remove them. I will in the future more flesh out the views that more choice is better. However we should start a discussion on how the system can be improved in the future as our future is not the lack of choice provided in the past.
I guess that posting didn't go the way I had hoped. I will try to be more on topic in the future.
We are almost 3 years advanced from when the last presidential election began for those campaigning. (Some could argue that the election cycle started with Hilary's last senate bid as she rose a significant amount of money for an almost assured senate win.) Looking back at this point should provide some clarity that we can apply to future elections. For the duration of this article I will not be discussing the validity of political parties, gerrymandering, or the quality of candidates but instead I will try to dissect the last cycle and what it says about the system. I will in the future discuss the last election cycle in regards to the candidates in the future.
What are the more important lessons from the last election in the eyes of a young voter who finally was interested in politics? Basically the take away lesson is that the political process does not raise up politicians which energize the electorate. You may think this is odd given that Obama ran in the last election and by most counts energized the young vote in a way that hasn't happened in a while? Well the problem with that is that Obama is/was a super-star and the 'in thing' has a large draw on young people. As a passive test I have asked various friends of mine to name Obama's policies during the election or to state their agreement with various policies that Obama stated he would support once in office. In the former case the results were fairly laughable (though not scientific) and in the latter a surprising amount of people stated that they did not agree with various policies (again not a scientific result).
However this is not to discuss the election of Obama nor the 'super-star' status of our current president. What I would like to point out is the primary process. Now a LOT can be written about this and has however I will focus on one thing : the turn-out during the primary and why it is important. My thesis is thus : 'The primary elections (in the early primaries and caucuses) provide an opportunity for the voter to more accurately choose a representative of their views. This however is hampered by low-turnout and in the main election the voters lose their ability to choose the better of all evils.' (With the caveat that in the last election 'I' think the choice was not between two evils but two people I didn't completely agree with.)
How does this this manifest itself? In the primaries there are two type of primaries, closed and open. In a closed primary the voter must be a member of that political party to vote. The primary process is meant to have the state political parties select their voting representatives to the party's convention. (The conventions in this day and age are mostly redundant from a selection of the candidate perspective, however historically they had a huge impact, for an interesting read : 'Team of Rivals' by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Lincoln's national convention was definitely not determined before hand.) So in one respect the primary voting serves a specific and appropriate position.
In an open primary, a voter can choose the party who's primary they will vote in. This allows for a more interesting vote from a game perspective. If you think your choice will win their party's nomination then voting in the other primary for a weaker contender would be a more impactful vote. In fact this has been known to happen. However the voter is at least given the choice to vote for the most amiable person despite party preference. However if a candidate running is completely different than the party they are running for the nomination, they could still garner a significant number of votes. This provides systemic risk for the parties running the primary. So which is the better choice? In one system you have to be a member of the party to vote for your choice and in the other the party is left to outside forces. While the party could nullify a state's representatives this would never happen. So what is the best option? How could the system be more transparent to the will of the people?
The first answer is a completely open system which implements instant-runoff voting. This would significant hurt the power of the current duopoly in the government and so is likely to not work. Why is this better? This would allow for everyone to vote for whom they want regardless of political affiliation. (I will discuss instant run-off voting in another post.) What is needed is a system where the people running for political office is open to all people and not biased against independents but also allows for political parties.
there is one state which has implemented something different for all state offices. The election is in two steps. The first step allows the voters to choose their top two candidates (a process that is not required in an instant runoff system). Then these two candidates run in the actual election regardless of their political affiliation. In fact political affliction could be anything. This would tap into the momentum of having a candidate who more accurately reflects the voter's preference but also allows for situations where a party just doesn't put forward individuals who are palatable to the voters. This current system also dissuades the majority of voters from being interested in the system once their candidate is out. (This is definitely an indictment of these voters and their lack of caring but it also shows that the system fails these people.)
The problem with the current system is the system enforces a voting procedure which only helps the political parties in power which is unhelpful and unresponsive to the voter. However in any discussion it should be stated that all systems have risks and problems no matter how much they try to remove them. I will in the future more flesh out the views that more choice is better. However we should start a discussion on how the system can be improved in the future as our future is not the lack of choice provided in the past.
I guess that posting didn't go the way I had hoped. I will try to be more on topic in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
