Preamble

I like paradoxes, because they can lead to mathematical and logical proofs of the type known as Reductio ad Absurdum (meaning "proof by contradiction").

According to Winston Churchill:

On Democracy

Democracy doesn't guarantee "good" government, far from it. By "good" I mean some "gold standard" (a standard we don't have and never can) of the best possible course of action for the best interests of all. We don't have any way of measuring best interests of an individual, and if we did we don't have anything that would let us say that, for example, my displeasure at measure X is balanced by somebody else's pleasure because not only are these things subjective they're also non-linear. A billionaire would shrug off a tax measure that cost him an extra dollar a week but somebody on the poverty-line would find it crippling. Most of us fail some part of the time in taking actions to balance our own interests (I really ought not to drink as much because however enjoyable it is at the time the hangover is a killer). Only a being with infinite knowledge and infinite wisdom could possibly divine what was the best possible course of action for the best interests of all.

What democracy guarantees (well, in an ideal world without vote-rigging) is that if you live in a society and are affected by the rules of how that society operates then you get a say in determining the rules of that society. That doesn't mean that you will necessarily get your way—the majority may think otherwise. In a good democracy steps are taken to minimize the tyranny of the majority but that only prevents (if you're lucky) excesses; it doesn't guarantee that you will get your way if you're in a minority.

Democracy sure as hell doesn't guarantee that the majority view is right (even by the standards of individuals, let alone supreme deities) because it cannot. It's a "Burger King" thing taken to extremes: "You want it that way, you got it. So don't complain if you don't fucking like it." It's "You want bread and circuses, you got bread and circuses—stop complaining now you realize that bread and circuses weren't such a good idea after all."

Democracy is, as Churchill recognized, full of flaws but the best we have. As such, we make an implicit compact with others: you might get your way this time but next time I might get my way. It functions correctly only if everyone honours the principle. When one side says "I got my way last time; this time you ought to get your way but I won't let you this is a breach of the compact and wrong, wrong, wrong.

None of the above directly connects to the paradoxes inherent in vote-rigging, it just explains why democracy is, if not a good thing, then the best thing we have. God, were there such a thing, might be able to do better (and if that were possible we'd be in a "benign dictatorship," not a democracy).

Meritocracy

Plato argued that a "wise philosopher king" was the best form of government. That some people (philosophers) were best-suited to kingship (the fact that Plato was himself a philosopher was something he was less voluble about when proposing that people like him ought to be king).

Some vote-riggers justify breaking the contract on the grounds that they know better than you what is in your own best interests. They shroud it in the claim that they, rather than you, know how to achieve those interests. Only Gawd knows that, and He ain't telling (if you can point to a place where every creed of every religion agrees on the same thing with regard to, say, Lehman then let me know).

The fact is that philosophers don't know what's best for you, they don't even know what's best for themselves (any more than do you or I). Other meritocracies (based on things other than being a philosopher) have the same flaw: Gawd (if He existed) might have the answer but these people do not.

You can spot a potential meritocracy immediately: the people proposing it have exactly those characteristics they claim meritorious.

The Paradoxes

The obvious paradoxes are.

• If you are so fucking certain that your view is entirely unassailable then you don't need to cheat because everyone will vote your way.
  
  
• If you think you are entitled to ram your opinion down the throats of those who disagree with you, why are they not entitled to do the same to you?
  
  
• If you think you are entitled to cheat to get your way, why should not your opponent?
  

But the main paradox is this: if you lie and cheat in a democracy to achieve your ends then you do not believe in a democracy at all. What you actually believe in is getting your own way no matter what. If you believed in democracy then the majority would be convinced by your arguments and vote the same way you do.

To put it in simpler form: If you have to lie to make your case in court then it's because you don't have a fucking case.

Conclusion

The Republicans are cheating. They know they're cheating. They don't believe in Democracy, they merely abuse it for their own ends. But they tell themselves they believe in Democracy. They don't.

Reductio ad absurdum

...they have not been winning elections legitimately since 2000.