3 ms·
Hmm, but what if "a minority that cares passionately" are nazis or religious fanatics or some other extremist group? They fit the description pretty well, and j
by ivanhoe 9y ago
Hmm, but what if "a minority that cares passionately" are nazis or religious fanatics or some other extremist group? They fit the description pretty well, and just being a minority doesn't validate your ideas or views automatically. This system would, as a side-effect, effectively give more political leverage to all extremist groups out there, too.
In many European countries ethnical minorities are given a few guaranteed seats in the parliament to ensure that their voices are heard. The same could be done for a wider spectrum of minority groups that are of interest to society, selectively boosting their political influence, but still filtering out the crazy ones. Problem with this is that it's not as stable as giving everyone the same rights unconditionally, as it's much more prone to manipulations, like cutting deals with minority representatives who got elected without voting and making wide coalitions with them in order to take over the power, against the will of the majority.
- versteegen 9y agoI think you actually have it back to front at least in the most extreme example. Suppose group A strongly wish to do horrible things to group B, expel/exterminate/incarcerate, whatever. A might care passionately, but B's lives are at stake, they care even more about the issue. A wouldn't actually get their way unless they are the majority. As long as one group's actions are considerably detrimental to another, that other group will care.
- emerongi 9y agoA could be a big enough threat that B will buy a lot of votes. In a way, A can blackmail B, because the money gets distributed later (A will get a lot more back than they put in, because B bought an unnecessarily high amount of votes). Is this scenario acceptable?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]