4 ms·

There are some petitions on change.org which I, as a citizen, would like to petition against (rather than for). A petition may have huge support but it also ma

by xexers 9y ago

There are some petitions on change.org which I, as a citizen, would like to petition against (rather than for). A petition may have huge support but it also may have huge opposition... that opposition is not shown on change.org. Not showing the opposition to an issue paints a skewed image that I hope politicians can recognise. For example, if the evangelicals made a petition to ban abortions in USA, it could potentially get a lot of support but yet there is no way for others to show their strong opposition against that as well.

adamsea 9y ago
Create a petition for the opposite thing.
- xexers 9y ago
  I think that's easier said than done. People are inspired to up-vote a petition if it has action... but what if you're position is that we just keep doing the status quo on an issue. For example, you can imagine a petition saying: "The gender pay gap is statistically $0.72 for female workers. I propose we simply SOLVE this now. Let's tax MEN and give the proceeds to women to even up this pay disparity". Sadly, I've seen petitions like that and they are as absurd as my hypothetical above.... but you're asking me to make a petition saying: "The existing laws around gender discrimination are plenty good. Let's keep with what have now" Somehow I feel like my petition wont take off.
  - tajen 9y ago
    Spot within your example, I've actually written a petition for "Men should have the same rights as women, i.e. change X and Y in sectors Z and Z2". If downvotes were allowed, it would take a single feminist organization to sweep my petition, whereas it is difficult to gather men's votes. I much prefer that downvotes aren't possible. I can work little-by-little and find the right message until I gather enough votes to lead a better campaign.
paganel 9y ago
> For example, if the evangelicals made a petition to ban abortions in USA, it could potentially get a lot of support but yet there is no way for others to show their strong opposition against that as well. Plus, even if somehow the evangelicals and those supporting them were to have the upper hand in terms of numbers, you still can't do things like ban abortions based on numbers alone. Basic, more modern human principles shouldn't be left to democratic vote (i.e. the voice of the majority). The right of a woman to have an abortion is a basic (and more modern, judging by recent history, if we exclude the Romans) human principle.
- jnicholasp 9y ago
  > > Basic, more modern human principles shouldn't be left to democratic vote What process should be used to decide which are these modern human principles that are too important to be left to majority rule, and who gets to participate in that process?
  - ada1981 9y ago
    Exactly.
  - paganel 9y ago
    It's a centuries old question. I for myself am a Kantian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative) when it comes to morals (or at least I try to be one), but leaving aside what I believe, I think it is fair to say that majority rule has historically been against lots of things that we now see as being "morally good", so to speak.
    - jnicholasp 9y ago
      It's a millennia old question, and still the best answer for how to produce collective agreements, on questions we do not collectively unanimously agree on, is simply to count the votes and do what most people want to do. Yes, the majority has often wanted to do things we now think were reprehensible, and this is certainly an ongoing situation. But Churchill is still right: democracy is a terrible form of government, it's just that it's not quite as terrible as every other form we've tried. And you haven't answered my question - what should we replace democracy with, and precisely how would that process work - and without answering that question it's tedious to make pronouncements about how much better some undefined alternative would be. G.K. Chesterton: "Revolutionaries are always right about what is wrong, and they are usually wrong about what is right." It's easy to see the flaws in something that exists in front of us. It's very hard to design something that would in actual fact be better.

by xexers 9y ago

adamsea 9y ago

Create a petition for the opposite thing.

xexers 9y ago
I think that's easier said than done. People are inspired to up-vote a petition if it has action... but what if you're position is that we just keep doing the status quo on an issue. For example, you can imagine a petition saying: "The gender pay gap is statistically $0.72 for female workers. I propose we simply SOLVE this now. Let's tax MEN and give the proceeds to women to even up this pay disparity". Sadly, I've seen petitions like that and they are as absurd as my hypothetical above.... but you're asking me to make a petition saying: "The existing laws around gender discrimination are plenty good. Let's keep with what have now" Somehow I feel like my petition wont take off.
- tajen 9y ago
  Spot within your example, I've actually written a petition for "Men should have the same rights as women, i.e. change X and Y in sectors Z and Z2". If downvotes were allowed, it would take a single feminist organization to sweep my petition, whereas it is difficult to gather men's votes. I much prefer that downvotes aren't possible. I can work little-by-little and find the right message until I gather enough votes to lead a better campaign.

paganel 9y ago

> For example, if the evangelicals made a petition to ban abortions in USA, it could potentially get a lot of support but yet there is no way for others to show their strong opposition against that as well. Plus, even if somehow the evangelicals and those supporting them were to have the upper hand in terms of numbers, you still can't do things like ban abortions based on numbers alone. Basic, more modern human principles shouldn't be left to democratic vote (i.e. the voice of the majority). The right of a woman to have an abortion is a basic (and more modern, judging by recent history, if we exclude the Romans) human principle.

jnicholasp 9y ago
> > Basic, more modern human principles shouldn't be left to democratic vote What process should be used to decide which are these modern human principles that are too important to be left to majority rule, and who gets to participate in that process?
- ada1981 9y ago
  Exactly.
- paganel 9y ago
  It's a centuries old question. I for myself am a Kantian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative) when it comes to morals (or at least I try to be one), but leaving aside what I believe, I think it is fair to say that majority rule has historically been against lots of things that we now see as being "morally good", so to speak.
  - jnicholasp 9y ago
    It's a millennia old question, and still the best answer for how to produce collective agreements, on questions we do not collectively unanimously agree on, is simply to count the votes and do what most people want to do. Yes, the majority has often wanted to do things we now think were reprehensible, and this is certainly an ongoing situation. But Churchill is still right: democracy is a terrible form of government, it's just that it's not quite as terrible as every other form we've tried. And you haven't answered my question - what should we replace democracy with, and precisely how would that process work - and without answering that question it's tedious to make pronouncements about how much better some undefined alternative would be. G.K. Chesterton: "Revolutionaries are always right about what is wrong, and they are usually wrong about what is right." It's easy to see the flaws in something that exists in front of us. It's very hard to design something that would in actual fact be better.