5 ms·

I am not from the US but it's the same thing everywhere. The only place where citizens seem to have an impact is Switzerland where with enough signatures you c

I am not from the US but it's the same thing everywhere. The only place where citizens seem to have an impact is Switzerland where with enough signatures you can request a referendum. Good luck implementing that in other countries. Somebody one day told me this little bit of wisdom: In a dictatorship, the government wants you to shut the hell up but in a democracy they let you keep talking because they don't listen and do not give a single fuck about you. The world's political systems are broken. I for one do not bother to vote anymore and the cynicism transpires in my daily life where on many issues I find myself thinking that if nobody cares, why should I? That's progress apparently.

zapita 8y ago
California has a pretty extensive referendum system (although not as far-reaching as Switzerland). Overall I think it’s a positive. Although one of the dumbest and most destructive policy in California (proposition 13) was introduced by referendum. And I believe Switzerland has been known to show its nasty xenophobic side from time to time. So it’s a double-edged sword.
- thirdsun 8y ago
  It's downright dangerous. Putting major decisions directly in the hands of the people requires well informed citizens and balanced, independent media coverage. While it's not a problem exclusive to the US, judging by recent political developments and voting outcomes I'd say a large number of people are particularly prone to manipulation and populist narratives.
TallGuyShort 8y ago
I struggle a lot with the idea of the tyranny of the 51%, though. I don't like Jeremy Clarkson's politics, but I really like a point he frequently makes in his columns: everyone loves the idea of a jury of one's own peers until they realize that their peers are all idiots. Same goes for democracy. It sounds great, until 51% of people start making dumb decisions about how you should run your life. Example: a slightly larger majority of my town than that wanted a slightly better deal of waste management, so they voted for a town-wide contract. Now I'm forced to pay for a recycling program that is so inconvenient I pay to use a different one anyway. Enough people (that it will probably happen) are now pushing for a measure to make it as convenient as it used to be, but raise taxes to pay for all the abuse that ruined things. I don't want better voting, I want the ability to opt out and be left alone.
- Proziam 8y ago
  This isn't actually that complex a problem. 51% don't get to make decisions, 66% do. The correct answer is almost always "no" so making it more difficult to get to a "yes" from the decision making body is (within reason) a good thing. This has the added benefit of forcing people to take a good hard look at what they propose because it has to make sense to everyone to have a chance to pass.
  - TallGuyShort 8y ago
    Yeah I absolutely love the solution of requiring a supermajority. I wish it was required in most instances and that we actually required it when it is already required by the Constitution in practice. In the US Constitution it's only used to convict, override or expel people who were elected by simple majority (or in some case,s less, though I like the idea of the electoral college not giving all power to a couple of states), and for ratifying treaties and constitutional amendments. Of course, even though alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment, you can apparently prohibit anything else by having it "scheduled". And when was the last time the President waited for Congress's permission for our foreign relations, be they treaties or war?
chimeracoder 8y ago
> The only place where citizens seem to have an impact is Switzerland where with enough signatures you can request a referendum. Good luck implementing that in other countries. That "works" in Switzerland because Switzerland is an entire country with a smaller population than New York City. Even then, it doesn't prevent pretty horrible laws from passing in Switzerland, because a majority of the electorate can be convinced to demonize a minority pretty easily. Direct democracy like this doesn't scale up well at all, and we can look at California's proposition system to how that turns out at a larger scale.

zapita 8y ago

California has a pretty extensive referendum system (although not as far-reaching as Switzerland). Overall I think it’s a positive. Although one of the dumbest and most destructive policy in California (proposition 13) was introduced by referendum. And I believe Switzerland has been known to show its nasty xenophobic side from time to time. So it’s a double-edged sword.

thirdsun 8y ago
It's downright dangerous. Putting major decisions directly in the hands of the people requires well informed citizens and balanced, independent media coverage. While it's not a problem exclusive to the US, judging by recent political developments and voting outcomes I'd say a large number of people are particularly prone to manipulation and populist narratives.

TallGuyShort 8y ago

I struggle a lot with the idea of the tyranny of the 51%, though. I don't like Jeremy Clarkson's politics, but I really like a point he frequently makes in his columns: everyone loves the idea of a jury of one's own peers until they realize that their peers are all idiots. Same goes for democracy. It sounds great, until 51% of people start making dumb decisions about how you should run your life. Example: a slightly larger majority of my town than that wanted a slightly better deal of waste management, so they voted for a town-wide contract. Now I'm forced to pay for a recycling program that is so inconvenient I pay to use a different one anyway. Enough people (that it will probably happen) are now pushing for a measure to make it as convenient as it used to be, but raise taxes to pay for all the abuse that ruined things. I don't want better voting, I want the ability to opt out and be left alone.

Proziam 8y ago
This isn't actually that complex a problem. 51% don't get to make decisions, 66% do. The correct answer is almost always "no" so making it more difficult to get to a "yes" from the decision making body is (within reason) a good thing. This has the added benefit of forcing people to take a good hard look at what they propose because it has to make sense to everyone to have a chance to pass.
- TallGuyShort 8y ago
  Yeah I absolutely love the solution of requiring a supermajority. I wish it was required in most instances and that we actually required it when it is already required by the Constitution in practice. In the US Constitution it's only used to convict, override or expel people who were elected by simple majority (or in some case,s less, though I like the idea of the electoral college not giving all power to a couple of states), and for ratifying treaties and constitutional amendments. Of course, even though alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment, you can apparently prohibit anything else by having it "scheduled". And when was the last time the President waited for Congress's permission for our foreign relations, be they treaties or war?

chimeracoder 8y ago

> The only place where citizens seem to have an impact is Switzerland where with enough signatures you can request a referendum. Good luck implementing that in other countries. That "works" in Switzerland because Switzerland is an entire country with a smaller population than New York City. Even then, it doesn't prevent pretty horrible laws from passing in Switzerland, because a majority of the electorate can be convinced to demonize a minority pretty easily. Direct democracy like this doesn't scale up well at all, and we can look at California's proposition system to how that turns out at a larger scale.