Voting In Democracies Causes Discord, Increases Strife & Causes Divisions

Voting In Democracies Causes Discord, Increases Strife & Causes Divisions

Until I get all the iTunes and other feeds sorted, I’ll just put the podcast on YouTube or BitChute.

Tomorrow is Election Day. My prediction is that Unhappiness increases, regardless who wins whatever offices.

If you haven’t already, read what is really Part I of this article, Voting Causes Suspicion & Distrust. Both that and this are modified excerpts of Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

You must understand from Part I the difference between largely shared goals, situations in which elections can work and produce happiness, and largely unshared goals, situations in which elections will only produce discord and unhappiness.

Variety Is The Spiciness Of Elections

In many large-scale elections, a variety of goals is the rule. The problem is people can’t always remember all of them. Worse, it is usually considered good policy of the rival parties to focus the electorate only on the unshared goals. This moves things in the direction of the second scenario in which there are no shared goals, but where it only seems as if there are no shared goals. Uncertainty in who is the best man is again irrelevant, because the goals between sides are made to seem entirely different.

As groups polarize over goals, a polarization which must come sooner or later the more the electorate resembles a pure democracy, then unless one side can convince the other of the sanity and righteousness of their goals, a split, possibly violent, is bound to occur. This splitting is not a logical necessity, so we are not in the place to label that split a fallacy, but it is, given history, a sensible prediction.

When We Can All Get Along

Shared goals, or mostly shared goals, and the maintenance and communication of as many shared goals as possible, is why voting works when it works, inside large or small groups. Voting can and does work and does not necessarily lead to splits.

Voting for a new leader in voluntary professional societies provides a good example. These positions are more or less honorary, and are in large part public relations-oriented. The majority of members are glad they don’t have to serve, plus all members have the shared goal of making the organization look good, thus enhancing their own reputations.

Elections rarely lead to trouble. When they do, it is because the directions the organization should take, according to its members, have lately diverged. This can happen when fields become more specialized, or when some members embrace a new theory or practice that leaves the traditional members cold. You won’t hear of marches or “cry-ins” or “days of rage” when a clique fails to have their man elected leader of a chemical society. But you might see the society cleaving into the Peoples Chemical Society and Chemicals for People Society.

The Fallacy Revealed

This, finally, is where the fallacy lies. That voting “works.” This is not an unconditional promise. Voting works, yes, but only in the those situations when the culture is largely shared. When there are sharp divisions, voting must and will fail some people. It is insulting and demeaning to hear at the time of election loss how voting worked. It did not. Call this the Voting Works Fallacy.

In major elections there are always a pool of “undecideds”, people whose attention all sides court. Though there is a feigned love for these folks when wooing them, there is also disdain toward them because they have not chosen a side. Not a side about the level of uncertainty of which candidate will do a better job, but of the side of the set of goals.

It is forgotten these people are those folks who still believe they are in a mono-culture. They don’t hold the “extreme” goals the other two sides do, but instead share the majority of “non-controversial” goals both sides actually hold but fail to consider. For undecideds, the election is more about uncertainty in reaching the shared goals, who is the best man, and not in aiming for one set of goals over another. This suggests it would be well to entice these people by appealing to these shared goals and boasting of a candidate’s greater chance (reducing uncertainty) in reaching these shared goals. That doesn’t happen much. Instead, the candidates and their parties more usually try to convince the undecideds to embrace their set of goals. This is effective to some degree, but guarantees greater disharmony after the election.

Democracy Is Discord

Every move toward greater democracy thus will—but not necessarily must: this is a contingent observation—increase discord. Widening the electorate fails to cause an increase in discord only when the new voters added largely share the same goals as the current voters. When they do not, it increases discord.

Consider that is was once much more likely for people within States to have a shared cultures than with the country as a whole, if only because States are comprised of smaller groups. So that when the States’ mandate to elect Senators by legislatures was removed to the populace, elections become more tumultuous. As expected.

Similarly, it cannot be that 16-year-olds will share the same goals as, say, 60-year-olds. Lowering the voting age must increase the possibilities for factions, and so will increase turmoil. Likewise, increasing immigration (by whatever means) of people who do not share the same goals as current residents (e.g. the desire for Sharia versus Christian common law) must necessarily cause difficulties and fractures. Diversity is our weakness, as far as voting is concerned.

It’s worth noting, as most scholars have, that once this bifurcation process gets started in a democracy, it always tends to the same violent end, unless something exterior or external occurs which re-unites the people.

There’s more to the Chapter, but I think you have the idea by now. Happy Election Day!

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. For Zelle, use my email:


  1. Hagfish Bagpipe

    ”But you might see the society cleaving into the Peoples Chemical Society and Chemicals for People Society.”

    If the Peoples Chemical Society wins tomorrow we are DOOMED! Vote for the Chemicals for People Society as if your life depended on it! And don’t waste your vote on any Society of Chemical People splitters!

  2. Kenan Meyer


    Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy, the God that failed,

    Jason Brennan, Against Democracy,
    although arriving at a different conclusion than Hoppe

  3. Incitadus

    Democracy is a fiction perpetuated by the masters of illusion that manipulate the price of
    oil and every other commodity that regulates wellbeing. They provide us with the selections
    for our elections.

  4. Johnno

    Another fallacy:

    Democracy dies in darkness???


    Democracy incrementally produces darkness!

    As democracy increases, more lies become necessary in order to “protect democracy.” More slander to safeguard our democratic institutions. More subversion of reality in order to keep it from undermining democratic order. And so on/so forth…

    Democracy is especially helped by Expurts and a very accommodating press!


  5. Agreed.

    But what happens when one side is a very small minority which consistently claims generally accepted cultural values but always acts in direct opposition to them? (and gets billionaire support for this in the media, entertainment, and academia? )

  6. RobPM

    The 17th amendment to the Constitution was surely a big change to the legislative branch of the government. Especially when it is made a popular vote. Democracy is not a good form of government because when I live on an island and there are more headhunters than me then guess who loses. I live in the deep blue state of NJ. I have no doubt that there is corruption in the voting system. There is really no way that a Republican running for the senate will win thus you guaranty that there will be 2 Democratic senators from NJ in the federal government. I think that would not be possible if the 17th amendment did not exist. But of course there were problems due to the depravity of man as time went on from the start of the constitution so the original system was breaking down as well. As John Adams and others said, the constitution is only for a moral people. The morals of the US have long since eroded and the lack of common grace is gone. I would just add a definition to a moral people. That would mean people who would hold in high esteem and follow the 10 commandments as they are found in Exodus 20 when they were first given and in Deuteronomy 5, 40 years later when they were entering the promised land. Then take what Jesus says about how you are to properly interpret them in Matthew 5 in the Sermon on the Mount. We are truly living in Romans 1:18-32 days and I do not have a whole lot of hope that we as these United States as we once started out as when we were first established, will continue to exist as we have for the past ~250 years. We will go the way of other once great nations. I am hoping and praying that God will be merciful to us and give us some reprieves along the way as he did with Israel during the history of her kings with such kings as Hezekiah and Josiah but we will see. God owes us nothing and we owe him everything. But he truly is a gracious God and full of loving kindness but that only goes so far. Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people. That is a reality!

  7. ES

    This reminded me of the Blackadder Series 3 episode where they had voting in England in the late 1700s. It comedically made the case for why it’s good not everyone can vote.

    video from youtube:

    But yes, seeing how we’re a republic and everyone keeps driving us toward a democracy, it just shows everyone wants to exert their political power on others they don’t like. Further proves the point of those that seek power don’t deserve to wield it. The structure of US government has changed so much since the founding as well. A shame how far we’ve let ourselves slip…….

  8. Hagfish Bagpipe

    Johnno: ”Democracy dies in darkness???”

    If we’re lucky.

  9. Johnno
  10. Johnno

    Hagfish, people are happier the more democracy operates in the dark.

    Who wants to live their life continuously seeing the inevitable train barreling towards them? Much more fun to just not notice it coming while you remain balancing on the left or right track. And when you’re finally hit by complete surprise, it is obviously the other track’s fault.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *