3 ms·

Sortition is just too corruptible and disagreeable I would think. You can sample a society and "educate" them but then that process will forever be under fire

by nemo44x 10y ago

Sortition is just too corruptible and disagreeable I would think. You can sample a society and "educate" them but then that process will forever be under fire too. I believe that in a democracy things should be hard to change. Changing things should take a super majority. This will lead to more compromise and possibly better results for all. If there was a 2/3 requirement to change things then there would be little room for controversial changes to occur that cause an uproar among the citizenship. There would be more cooperation because to change something you'd need to compromise with your opponent for them to get a change they want instead of trying to get a slim majority in the government by election, etc. If this principal was applied in the first place the UK never would have joined the EU and Brexit wouldn't have ever even been an issue. In fact, many of the things a lot of people find disagreeable wouldn't have happened. We are divided because we let our form of democracy divide us.

dingaling 10y ago
Whilst I agree that a supermajority is an excellent idea for changing things, it's still staightforward for politicians ( or more precisely, civil service mandarins ) to play the long-game to achieve what they want regardless. They can operate on a longer timeline than the average voter,for whom there are more pressing daily concerns. For example, de Gaulle originally blocked the UK's entry into the EEC. So the UK went off and formed the rival EFTA with some peripheral nations, until EFTA was eventually folded into the ECSC / EEC. By the time a referendum on remaining was eventually held, in 1975, the UK was already deep in the EEC. Change had been achieved without a majority, or even a minority.
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
If you impose too high a barrier to change, then laws cannot stay in sync with society, and that will lead to severe unrest.
- mrec 10y ago
  Yes. I think this is a common misunderstanding about democracy. Democracy is not good because it provides the best government, or even competent government; much of the time it manifestly doesn't. Democracy is good because it provides for stable succession; if a discontented group is strong enough to stage a successful coup or revolution, then in a democracy it's probably strong enough to achieve its ends at far lower cost and risk by waiting a couple of years until the next election. The EU was founded in large part to prevent yet another European war; that's a noble goal and for all its flaws I think the EU can claim a lot of credit for 70 years of peace. Warnings against complacency that "it could never happen again these days" are well-made and well-taken. But we haven't had a violent revolution or civil war in western Europe for a fair while either - anything since Franco? - and I think that's largely thanks to functional democracy. Messing with that is not to be taken lightly either. You don't have to go back very far to find everyone collectively soiling their breeches every time a monarch started getting on a bit without a solid heir in sight.
- nemo44x 10y ago
  For sure and maybe 2/3 is too high. Certainly if you impose too low a barrier you get unrest as well - as we are witnessing across democracies today. I would love to see a study that uses the scientific method to determine what the best percentage is for keeping the most people happy. My gut tells my 70% is too high and 50% is too low but that's conjecture.

by nemo44x 10y ago

dingaling 10y ago

Whilst I agree that a supermajority is an excellent idea for changing things, it's still staightforward for politicians ( or more precisely, civil service mandarins ) to play the long-game to achieve what they want regardless. They can operate on a longer timeline than the average voter,for whom there are more pressing daily concerns. For example, de Gaulle originally blocked the UK's entry into the EEC. So the UK went off and formed the rival EFTA with some peripheral nations, until EFTA was eventually folded into the ECSC / EEC. By the time a referendum on remaining was eventually held, in 1975, the UK was already deep in the EEC. Change had been achieved without a majority, or even a minority.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

If you impose too high a barrier to change, then laws cannot stay in sync with society, and that will lead to severe unrest.

mrec 10y ago
Yes. I think this is a common misunderstanding about democracy. Democracy is not good because it provides the best government, or even competent government; much of the time it manifestly doesn't. Democracy is good because it provides for stable succession; if a discontented group is strong enough to stage a successful coup or revolution, then in a democracy it's probably strong enough to achieve its ends at far lower cost and risk by waiting a couple of years until the next election. The EU was founded in large part to prevent yet another European war; that's a noble goal and for all its flaws I think the EU can claim a lot of credit for 70 years of peace. Warnings against complacency that "it could never happen again these days" are well-made and well-taken. But we haven't had a violent revolution or civil war in western Europe for a fair while either - anything since Franco? - and I think that's largely thanks to functional democracy. Messing with that is not to be taken lightly either. You don't have to go back very far to find everyone collectively soiling their breeches every time a monarch started getting on a bit without a solid heir in sight.
nemo44x 10y ago
For sure and maybe 2/3 is too high. Certainly if you impose too low a barrier you get unrest as well - as we are witnessing across democracies today. I would love to see a study that uses the scientific method to determine what the best percentage is for keeping the most people happy. My gut tells my 70% is too high and 50% is too low but that's conjecture.