[lbo-talk] ruling class

[Josh Narins]

> Bill wrote:
> 
> >In societies where political government is democratically elected,
> >the laws are to a large degree in the hands of the ruled class
> >(because they constitute the overwhelming majority of the people and
> >their votes swamp the votes of the capitalist class.) This helps
> >ensure that, to the extent possible within the context of capitalist
> >economics, the legal structure will be acceptable by the majority and
> >workable. Which is of immense benefit to the capitalist class.
> >
> >*********
> 
> Mike B) responded:
> 
> >Selection of candidates comes before election of law makers/judges and 
> >the selectors are not members of the ruled class in a bourgeois democracy.
> 
> The selectors are the 'powerbrokers' and other moneyed interests who know their
> class interests.  Bourgeois democracy is just that, democracy for the
> bourgeois.  To be sure, the working class votes for the candidates selected for
> them.  But, they certainly don't control the State--the laws are not in their
> hands.  As long as they don't threaten the rule of Capital (i.e. they do not
> become class consciously organized), they will continue to be encouraged to
> vote for the major party candidates of their choice and even attend the church
> and liquor store of their choice.  The rules and regs differ in each capitalist
> democracy, but the result is the same : the continued rule of Capital.  

Good news, then.

The largest three Parliaments in the English speaking world 

    the UK House of Commons (600+)

    the US House of Representatives (435)
and the New Hampshire House of Representatives (400).

No power brokers are involved when roughly 800 votes gets someone into
the NH State House.  If the candidate doesn't bother to stop by your 
House, don't vote for them :)

After the 1790 census, America had about 31,000 people (incl. 3/5ths 
of...) per district. Half, we can guess, were women. The majority of
the remainder were not propertied. I hear Virginia was about 2% peopled
by actual voters, so maybe 620 people voted for each Representative.

Now it is 690,000.

Logic says that there have to be power brokers in such cases.

It's hard to argue that simply increasing the size of a Parliament will
increase its effectiveness (have you tried to get 400+ people to agree
lately?) but it will increase its representativeness and decrease the
power of the media and the powerbrokers.

To break the backs of the parties, though, for that you need a
monotonic, cloneproof, condorcet balloting method like Schulze or
Tideman.  IRV is not the answer, and the reasons are mathematical, and
therefore shouldn't be doubted.