5 ms·

If 51% of voters choose to murder all minorities, would that be allowed? The US has constitutionalism which requires supermajorities to effect fundamental chang

by dangjc 10y ago

If 51% of voters choose to murder all minorities, would that be allowed? The US has constitutionalism which requires supermajorities to effect fundamental changes. It slows down progress on issues like universal health care, but when progress is made, it is rarely rolled back.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
zghst 10y ago
This is completely different. This is a nation voting to leave a supranational union
Crito 10y ago
> "If 51% of voters choose to murder all minorities, would that be allowed" If you feel the need to resort to such hyperbolic examples to make your point, then you should really reevaluate whether or not you actually have a point worth making.
- falcojr 10y ago
  Reductio ad absurdum is a great way to prove or disprove your point is valid.
runholm 10y ago
Let's simply refrain from comparing leaving the EU to ethnic cleansing. Ok?
- dangjc 10y ago
  The point is that majorities are allowed to make some decisions, not all. At the broadest level, there are rights which no majority can take away. Some fundamental changes require super majorities. Then at a geographical level, decision making can also be split. Local councils handle local affairs. Devolution allows some decisions to be made at a regional level. While many Brits bristle at decisions being made in far off Brussels, many Scots bristle at decisions made in London.
- savanaly 10y ago
  There are other axes of comparison besides moral reprehensibility.
  - csallen 10y ago
    If only more people understood this. It's frustrating how often people focus on the moral element of a comparison to the exclusion of the actual point being made.
lmm 10y ago
I don't think there was ever a supermajority for going in (and the EU has gradually crept into something much bigger than it originally was), so it doesn't make much sense to require a supermajority for getting out.
humanrebar 10y ago
> It slows down progress on issues like universal health care That's an odd example because somewhere around half the U.S. feels like the ACA was jammed through without a supermajority of popular approval. Also, there are many who think mandating the purchase of a product (health insurance) is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that they could squint at the law and call it a tax, but the bill was never passed as a 'health insurance tax', which goes back to popular approval. Anyway, maybe civil rights reforms, the direct election of senators, or lowering the voting age would be better examples.
- dangjc 10y ago
  It actually was a supermajority of 60 senators that passed it. The House concurred, the President signed it, and five supreme court justices repeatedly affirmed it. These all reflect different cross sections of voting behaviour. A majority of Congress now wants to repeal it, but that majority is checked and balanced by the need to get the President on board as well. I generally dislike how the system favors the status quo, but I think in many cases, it has helped avoid extreme outcomes.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > It actually was a supermajority of 60 senators that passed it. I was talking about popular support. It didn't have 60% approval of the voting public. In fact, that wouldn't have even been possible because it was a monster of a bill they were trying to cram through. It was so haphazard that some Supreme Court decisions were about what to do when the bill itself doesn't make sense. And you mischaracterized the Supreme Court decision. The legal precedent was that an individual tax on not having healthcare is legal as long as it's not too onerous. That was a very odd decision because that tax was not the plan as presented to the American public. The whole process was convoluted, which brings its legitimacy into question. Again, big decisions should have clear support from the American people. Deciding people can be taxed for nothing (not having healthcare) is a change in the rules of the game and should have required an amendment, IMO.
the_common_man 10y ago
I wish I could flag this comment. Unnecessary trolling.

by dangjc 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

zghst 10y ago

This is completely different. This is a nation voting to leave a supranational union

Crito 10y ago

> "If 51% of voters choose to murder all minorities, would that be allowed" If you feel the need to resort to such hyperbolic examples to make your point, then you should really reevaluate whether or not you actually have a point worth making.

falcojr 10y ago
Reductio ad absurdum is a great way to prove or disprove your point is valid.

runholm 10y ago

Let's simply refrain from comparing leaving the EU to ethnic cleansing. Ok?

dangjc 10y ago
The point is that majorities are allowed to make some decisions, not all. At the broadest level, there are rights which no majority can take away. Some fundamental changes require super majorities. Then at a geographical level, decision making can also be split. Local councils handle local affairs. Devolution allows some decisions to be made at a regional level. While many Brits bristle at decisions being made in far off Brussels, many Scots bristle at decisions made in London.
savanaly 10y ago
There are other axes of comparison besides moral reprehensibility.
- csallen 10y ago
  If only more people understood this. It's frustrating how often people focus on the moral element of a comparison to the exclusion of the actual point being made.

lmm 10y ago

I don't think there was ever a supermajority for going in (and the EU has gradually crept into something much bigger than it originally was), so it doesn't make much sense to require a supermajority for getting out.

humanrebar 10y ago

> It slows down progress on issues like universal health care That's an odd example because somewhere around half the U.S. feels like the ACA was jammed through without a supermajority of popular approval. Also, there are many who think mandating the purchase of a product (health insurance) is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that they could squint at the law and call it a tax, but the bill was never passed as a 'health insurance tax', which goes back to popular approval. Anyway, maybe civil rights reforms, the direct election of senators, or lowering the voting age would be better examples.

dangjc 10y ago
It actually was a supermajority of 60 senators that passed it. The House concurred, the President signed it, and five supreme court justices repeatedly affirmed it. These all reflect different cross sections of voting behaviour. A majority of Congress now wants to repeal it, but that majority is checked and balanced by the need to get the President on board as well. I generally dislike how the system favors the status quo, but I think in many cases, it has helped avoid extreme outcomes.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > It actually was a supermajority of 60 senators that passed it. I was talking about popular support. It didn't have 60% approval of the voting public. In fact, that wouldn't have even been possible because it was a monster of a bill they were trying to cram through. It was so haphazard that some Supreme Court decisions were about what to do when the bill itself doesn't make sense. And you mischaracterized the Supreme Court decision. The legal precedent was that an individual tax on not having healthcare is legal as long as it's not too onerous. That was a very odd decision because that tax was not the plan as presented to the American public. The whole process was convoluted, which brings its legitimacy into question. Again, big decisions should have clear support from the American people. Deciding people can be taxed for nothing (not having healthcare) is a change in the rules of the game and should have required an amendment, IMO.

the_common_man 10y ago

I wish I could flag this comment. Unnecessary trolling.