Equality by lot

Choice

4 Responses

1. 

   keithsutherland, on February 19, 2016 at 9:45 am said:

   And it’s true (in the non-ironic sense) when the choice is limited to a small number of parties that nail their colours to the mast and have a reasonable chance of electoral success. If there were a general election tomorrow, UK voters would have a genuine choice to make. As to whether this sort of smart-arse sloganising makes sense in the context of Israeli elections I’m not qualified to say but at least voters are presented with some choice (as opposed to under a kleristocracy). The paradox of excessive choice is that people will simply opt for the familiar (as is the case with unlimited TV channels or restaurant menus that run to more than one page).

   LikeLike
2. 

   Ted Aranda, on February 20, 2016 at 12:40 am said:

   Exactly. The major parties (the only viable ones) merely take turns managing the Great Charade, which couldn’t be pulled off with just one party. You’d have to be a zombie not to see this in the US–and unfortunately there are a lot of zombies, not least among the “intellectual” class. The game is somewhat more nuanced in parliamentary systems, but ultimately no less undemocratic. The representative system writ large is a sophisticated, modern version of oligarchy/tyranny, plain and simple.

   LikeLiked by 1 person
3. 

   keithsutherland, on February 20, 2016 at 6:09 am said:

   That’s strange Ted, I thought the graphic was aimed at multi party polities like Israel, not the US, but its your thesis untroubled by such minor empirical irritants?

   LikeLike
4. 

   keithsutherland, on February 20, 2016 at 6:18 am said:

   P.S. I guess the lovely thing about political theory is that you can keep it “plain and simple” if you so choose. Whether such theses have any connection to the real world is another matter.

   LikeLike

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.