The minimum requirement for a democracy to function is that, at every election, each individual voter is able to correctly identify and vote for a person/party whose policies protects that individual’s own interests. Ideally, each individual would be able to determine what is in the best interest of the entire society, and would vote based on that. But that is too idealistic. In practice, meeting only the above minimum requirement should be considered a very high point for any society.
The idea behind that minimum requirement mentioned above is that a notion of “collective wisdom” will ensure that the overall results of the election will protect the overall interests of the entire population. Proponents of the democratic systems often cite an experiment by the statistician Francis Galton in early 20th century, where at a county fair, he observed people guessing the weight of an ox and found that when he averaged all the guesses, the result was surprisingly close to the actual weight, demonstrating the concept of “wisdom of the crowd”. The idea is that by averaging the estimates, we can remove/reduce the error that each individual’s guess might incur, thus obtaining a final number that can be a far better estimate than each individual’s estimate. It should be noted, however, that the above conclusion relies on two important factors:
- that each individual’s guess is a random variable with its mean being the correct weight of the ox, and
- that different individuals’ estimates are independent. Technically, the independence requirement is not necessary, as long as the ensemble can be considered to be reasonably ergodic (i.e., the statistical properties across the ensemble resemble the statistical properties of the random variable from which each individual’s estimate is drawn); in practice some level of independence among individual estimators is needed to guarantee such ergodicity.
The first factor above, itself, relies on an assumption that each individual has some basic knowledge in the subject matter about which they are opining (estimating the weight of the ox, in this case). That would be a fair assumption in the case of people attending a county fair in early 20th century; that they would have at least some rough idea about how much an average ox would weigh, and that they would also be able to make reasonable adjustments based on their observations of the size and shape/form of the ox. But what if the task was instead to estimate/determine the mass of the Moon or the Sun, or the GDP of their country, or what had caused the recent inflation across the world, or how, if at all, should the government control/reduce the inflation, or how tariffs can affect the prices of goods which directly affect the individual’s life and well-being. Answering such questions requires both some general knowledge about each subject matter (similar to the knowledge about the average weight of the ox in the above example), and some critical thinking skills, to be able to make reasonable adjustments based on their observations (similar to what the fair attendants in the above example did by observing the size and shape of the ox).
It is unfortunate, but a sad reality, that not only the average voter, but even the very educated ones, are not able to make educated guesses/estimates or determinations about items in many subject matters that are involved in the policies that political parties or candidates lay out in advance of the elections. Identifying the roots for this inability, especially in a society that takes pride on its democratic systems, is a separate subject, possibly for another post. But suffices to say that the self-esteem craze over the past several decades has been a major contributor. Based on a flawed study, proponents of the idea advocated for placing the main, and probably the only, focus on improving students’ self-esteem; basically teaching them that it really doesn’t matter whether you know something or not, as long as you have the self-esteem to talk about it confidently (often even over-confidently). This shifted the focus of schools from traditional classrooms in which the students were taught math, science, history, social studies, and the like, to sessions like rounding students around a circle and asking them to say something good about another student. I am not denying the positive effects of improving one’s self-esteem, but it is important to note that the resulting self-confidence should be backed by real knowledge and skills, and not be just an empty talk.
One interesting example of the devastating outcomes of this one-dimensional education system over the past several decades is a statement made by one of the lawyers of the former president. She was actually so proud about this that she volunteered the information, without even being asked about it during the interview. Basically, she demonstrated her “infinite wisdom” by saying that, between being smart and being pretty, she preferred to be pretty, because she could “fake being smart.”
The second factor above, regarding different individuals’ estimates being independent from each other, relies on the fact that different individuals make independent decisions based on their independent and reliable observations. For example, if the ox was placed in a box and only its head was shown to the audience, the observations would be both less reliable (more biased), and likely more correlated; if the ox, who was otherwise quite large, happened to have a relatively small face, the estimates of all participants would be skewed towards smaller numbers, resulting the average also being too small. Or even worse, if instead of showing the actual ox to the audience, there was just a poster of the ox, with exaggerated features and strong muscles, the estimates would all be skewed towards large numbers, making the resulting average also too large. It is obvious that reliable information is crucial for being able to make a decision/determination about anything, yet, at this age of social media, and with the extreme polarization of societies around the world, we all seem to be content with whatever is delivered to us through media that either have intentional positive feedback loops in their algorithms to constantly reinforce whatever ideas and beliefs we have about something, or have clear and explicit agenda of promoting a specific political party, politician, or ideology, at any cost, even if it takes misrepresentation of the facts, not covering all the facts about a subject, or even spreading disinformation.
So, with the basic components for that minimum requirement mentioned at the top of this post missing, it should not come as a surprise if we see that a very reasonably democratic system ends up electing officials that have absolutely no plan for, nor even any intention of, protecting the interests of the very same individuals who voted them to the office, let alone the interests of the entire society. Still, I am hopeful that through constructive dialogue, and as explained in a previous post, it is possible to make significant strides in the direction of improving both factors listed above.
9 responses to “A Democracy in Peril”
The experiment was based on “median” not “mean”. There are always some unhinged voters on the extreme left and right side of the bell curve who must be ignored.
Thanks a lot Shahab for the correction. I just looked up my notes and have pasted below what I had copied at that time from wikipedia, where it describes future communications/research which showed a better estimate in mean. But I guess for the sake of this discussion and the arguments expressed here, whether we use the mean or the median of the ensemble as an estimate does not make much difference. If we assume what I am claiming regarding the existence of potential bias and high correlation is correct, then both mean and median will be similarly affected.
“Galton was a keen observer. In 1906, visiting a livestock fair, he stumbled upon an intriguing contest. An ox was on display, and the villagers were invited to guess the animal’s weight after it was slaughtered and dressed. Nearly 800 participated, and Galton was able to study their individual entries after the event. Galton stated that “the middlemost estimate expresses the vox populi, every other estimate being condemned as too low or too high by a majority of the voters”,[49] and reported this value (the median, in terminology he himself had introduced, but chose not to use on this occasion) as 1,207 pounds. To his surprise, this was within 0.8% of the weight measured by the judges. Soon afterwards, in response to an enquiry, he reported[50] the mean of the guesses as 1,197 pounds, but did not comment on its improved accuracy. Recent archival research[51] has found some slips in transmitting Galton’s calculations to the original article in Nature: the median was actually 1,208 pounds, and the dressed weight of the ox 1,197 pounds, so the mean estimate had zero error. James Surowiecki[52] uses this weight-judging competition as his opening example: had he known the true result, his conclusion on the wisdom of the crowd would no doubt have been more strongly expressed.”
also to be pedantically correct, you may want to consider replacing the term “former president” with “president elect” (well, assuming that the post does not question the validity of election results 🙂 )
Thanks a lot for the comment. This is actually an important point, and quite frankly I had not given it enough thought. I agree with you that “president elect” is more accurate at this time, but after thinking about it a bit, I think I am going to keep it as “former president.” Not because I mean to question the validity of the election results; absolutely not. As I have mentioned in previous posts as well, I believe the former president won this election fair and square. The reason I want to keep the phrase “former president” is that it is valid now and will remain a valid title forever (although one might understandably argue whether it is appropriate to refer to a sitting president as “former president” if they had also served a previous term). On the other hand, “president elect” is only valid between November 5th and January 20th. Call me naive or delusional, but I tend to hope that someone else might also read this post sometime in the future 😀. For that person, using the phrase “president-elect” to refer to a former president may not be very meaningful.
obviously under the 1st amendment you can call him anything you want :), but perhaps it’s worth mentioning here that in the US all former presidents carry the title of “president” even after their term is over (e.g. “president Carter”, president Clinton” etc). So if you do not disagree with the election result and you want your post to be timeless and formal, it’s proper to refer to him as “president” or at least that’s what all official websites will refer to him after his terms is over (even though some people may find it unacceptable). Besides, if you are considering those who may read your posts after Jan 21st, then it will certainly confuse them because at that time “the former president” can directly refer to president Biden. Not saying you have to agree with this, it’s up to you to the set the standard for your posts however you want. As you know there are some individuals who refer to him as Hitler and still he has managed to survive that!
Thanks. Makes sense. I did mention the potential confusion between 1/20/2025 and 1/20/2029. While the title of former president will still be valid (for him and any other former president including Biden, Bush, and Reagan), I agreed that using that title instead of “president,” would be confusing. I will give it some more thought. But regarding the reference to Hitler, incidentally, the only person that I know of who has formally referred to the former president as “the American Hitler,” is the vice president elect JD Vance. And I agree with you that it is very ironic and incredible that he has survived such references (I don’t mean the exact terminology) in addition to from his current vice president elect, pretty much from any other high ranking official in his former administration including his vice president, two chiefs of staff, secretary of state, secretary of defence, etc. I guess none of those people had enough chance to get to know him well.
Sorry about multiple replies, but I feel it is important to emphasize that I have no concerns about the validity of the last election and its results, and I believe, as pretty much most everybody in the US does, that the former president won this election fair and square. I am emphasizing this again because the language of the comment may seem to imply that there might be some doubts about it. Ironically, I have heard/read several extreme right wing media that tried to imply that the left or liberals (or the communists, as they might refer to them) are contesting the results of the election, or that Harris has not conceded her loss. This is certainly not true, and I have not seen any credible source reporting such a thing. To me, it seems like the extreme right actually wishes that it were the case.
Sorry I feel like I’m meddling with your personal journal here a bit more than I should, but since the Francis Galton’s experiment showed up first in our 1:1 private conversation, I kinda felt I can add my two cents here:
titles and formalities aside, regarding the content of your post, I think the democratic approach to a democratically held election (regardless of when or where it was held) is accepting the results and respecting the majority vote and voters. I also think that the real intelligent choice after each election is to stay away from the extremes of left and right and divisive rhetoric (with whataboutism in the pocket and a chip on the shoulder). No matter who governs, If someone really cares about his/her country, there’s always a way to constructively and positively contribute with wisdom, expertise and action, not words and rants, well, unless one is a journalist, news anchor, political pundit or a politician (of course this is my personal take). That said, I’ll be interested to continue reading your weblog especially when you will continue expounding on your Coyote vs. Rabbit paradigm or start talking about your Global Solution to Privacy and Surveillance.
Thanks a lot for the discussion. I always learn new things whenever I have a discussion with you, technical or otherwise. So, the respose to your statement “Sorry I feel like I’m meddling with your personal journal here” is absolutely not. This kind of civilized discussions, especially among people with differing opinions, are the main and really only intention of these posts (as I had explained in the previous post, I believe a major contributor to the extreme polarizations that we currently witness around the world is lack of dialogue and conversation among people with opposing opinions).
Regarding the titles, sorry I am dragging this discussion longer than I should, but just noticed yesterday that most news outlets and agencies, when reporting the death of Jimmy Carter, referred to him by either just his name or as “former president Carter.” Of course, this is no justification for referring to a sitting president as “former president”.
I agree with you regarding “If someone really cares about his/her country, there’s always a way to constructively and positively contribute,” but I wouldn’t exclude words, as in a democratic society making informed decisions by every individual is important, and that the information needed for that informed decision is not always available through social media which is currently the main source of news for a large portion of the population. Simply put, if you and I allocate sufficient time for exchange of information that we have and their sources, before each election, we both will have a better chance of making more informed, albeit independent decisions of our own.
And thanks again for your interest in these very poorly written, often not very well organized collections of thoughts. I always welcome your insightful feedback, be it a suggestion or a critique.