I think I understand the confusion. When I say “vote”, I am not necessarily talking about electorates or plebiscites.
Neither am I. The “standard wisdom” I quoted applies to the very broadest understanding of “politics”: the theory of collective decision-making.
they end up adopting rules that require members to vote separately on
They didn’t “end up” adopting those rules, they chose those rules. Which are clearly the wrong rules.
In all this I’m also not seeing a place for the people participating in these joint decisions to discuss matters. Having each “voter” (see above) make their decision in isolation, on an agenda set by someone else, who will then combine the votes into a joint decision on questions never put, is a prima facie absurd way to do business, except for the one setting those rules and choosing the questions.
Neither am I. The “standard wisdom” I quoted applies to the very broadest understanding of “politics”: the theory of collective decision-making.
They didn’t “end up” adopting those rules, they chose those rules. Which are clearly the wrong rules.
In all this I’m also not seeing a place for the people participating in these joint decisions to discuss matters. Having each “voter” (see above) make their decision in isolation, on an agenda set by someone else, who will then combine the votes into a joint decision on questions never put, is a prima facie absurd way to do business, except for the one setting those rules and choosing the questions.