How are you going to win in a democratic republic?
You either fundamentally believe in maintaining a democratic republic, or you don't.
We might intuitively appreciate the theory that "politicians' campaigns, held accountable by a free press, will honorably inform and reasonably persuade the majority of voters based on verifiable facts." But most would agree that it has not worked perfectly well in practice. There may exist an inform-able and reasonably persuadable portion of the population, but at least in the USA in February 2020, that portion has, to date, been vastly outnumbered by apathetic non-voters, as well as those in each respective, die-hard ideological base.
If you do believe in maintaining a democratic republic, then you should need a majority of support to accomplish anything (if your country's laws require a supermajority, then the following argument is even more salient). So how do you get a majority? Sociopaths can try to employ fascism and genocide to exterminate opposition – this essay isn't for them.
Normally, there's a wide variety of opinions, and the people that hold them have their own gradations and priorities. For an example of views on the right, a given person might be generally pro-life, but she might think that a rape victim shouldn't be compelled by the state to have the rapist's baby. Consequently, she'll vote for the pro-life candidate unless he crosses that line.
Similarly, on the left, someone might be for the humane treatment of immigrants who enter illegally, but that person could also be against completely open borders that have no restrictions whatsoever.
Then there's the fact that everyone's priorities make politics even more complicated. Someone might have just three issues that are equally crucial in a voting decision and only another dozen issues that are worth some degree of care (simply ignoring every other policy matter).
• What happens when a politician barely agrees with two of the three crucial issues but is in total opposition to all of the dozen?
• What happens when the politician strongly agrees with one and barely disagrees on two of the three crucial issues and is confusingly split on the dozen?
One could develop an algorithm for methodically weighting the issues regarding one's vote (see AJU's 2012 TEDx Talk "Sports Can Save Politics" and any number of websites to "find your candidate"). But that could seem too formulaic, and consequently, one's vote is likely to end up being a gut decision.
Given a society's regular difference of beliefs with an exponentially more complicated hierarchy of priorities, you probably need some version of a voter coalition to create your preferred majority.
Of course, you can have dealbreaker "purity tests" on however many issues you like. A leftist could start out his dealbreaker list moderately and then increasingly, unreasonably keep adding to it until he guarantees himself a loss in elections.
• So where should he draw the line on this list: completely dismiss anyone for being pro-slavery, pro-holocaust, pro-nuking of enemy countries, pro-fossil fuels, pro-private vehicles, pro-carnivore, pro-commerce of any kind, pro-having animals as pets, pro-religion, pro-having children?
Which of those definitively alienates the majority? The progressive voter doesn't have to be best friends with the people who drive their own cars or eat animal products, but he probably should try to get their vote. If not, he's going to need an overwhelming coalition of people who agree with him on most everything else. To reject this reality is to facilitate the right-wing strategy of encouraging progressive purity tests and thus balkanizing the left (i.e., "divide and conquer").
In elections, when choosing a metaphorical bus driver, you have to answer some key questions:
• What's the driver's stated destination, and is that credible? A driver who says he's going West but lies and always goes East could be acceptable to a passenger heading East.
• What's the driver's track record and route to see if that's viable? If there's no road, what are the solutions to overcoming obstacles? Sometimes, the electorate solely wants a driver who will avoid a crash, and everything else is secondary.
If you don't believe in a democratic republic, then you need another system, and it's tough to make the case that anything other than oligarchy will ultimately prevail ("He who has the gold makes the rules"). Plato wanted the most honorable, intellectual elite to rule. But who would determine who merits becoming such a "guardian" and what's preventing those who currently have the most power from fraudulently designating themselves as the elite guardians?
It's especially relevant, in this period of rapid technological advancement, that civilization usually tends to embrace either diversity or uniformity. If it's uniformity, you better hope your particular sub-tribe prevails, or life will be miserable for you and all the outside tribes that lost. If it's diversity, such a pluralistic society will naturally encounter some conflict as the rival tribes have differing issues, priorities, and preferred directions.
But so long as the consensus won't accept any tribe's absolute insistence on uniformity, you can coexist. That's generally the premise of the U.S. Constitution: enshrined rights to "free speech" and "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" are integral to diversity and a complete rejection of uniformity.
All reasonable people acknowledge the imperfection of the original U.S. Constitution, if for no other reason than it accepts slavery and excluded voting rights for women. Amendments and the Supreme Court's evolving interpretations have, over time, tended to modernize the laws more appropriately.
Yet, the founders couldn't remotely fathom a future with an inevitably shrinking workforce due to A.I./robots ascendency. Unless one accepts genocide, MULTICULTURALISM and TOLERANCE need to take hold, permanently, before robots calcify the division between the owner-overlords and the oppressed (i.e., the doomed). Before such ubiquity of robots, there has always been a chance of a French Revolution-style uprising (the so-called "time for guillotines" where the underclass horrifically slaughters the 1%). But when robots can substantially do all of those underclass jobs, the 99% simply won't have the proximity or resources to execute. Consequently, for the good of the entire 100%, the citizenry needs to guarantee diversity before the robots can institute uniformity.
