6 ms·

Article 13 gets legalized because Sweden pushed the wrong voting button

107 points by endymi0n 8y ago

x38iq84n 8y ago
> they can have the record amended to show what their true intention was, but the vote is binding. Amazing rules, what a club to be in!
- ElBarto 8y ago
  I don't think any parliament will allow a new vote because a member claims (s)he made a mistake. That would create too many problems.
  - djsumdog 8y ago
    I think in the US senate, a senator can request individual verification where each senator has to physically say and verify their vote.
  - predakanga 8y ago
    I'm sure there are technicalities to it, but the Australian parliament allowed a new vote just this year.[0] In short, the governing party voted in favour of a motion that "It's okay to be white". The vote failed to pass, but the next day (amid condemnation) it was claimed that the vote was due to an administrative error. A new vote was held and the motion was defeated again, unanimously. I say there may be technicalities as apparently the vote was a "recommittal"[1], but on the face of it the parliament allowed a new vote because the members claimed to have made a mistake. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_OK_to_be_white#Australian_parliament_motion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_OK_to_be_white#Australi... [1]: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief08#detailed https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practi...
    - A2017U1 8y ago
      4chan really has a lot answer for when something that ridiculous gets voted upon in Parliament.
  - NikkiA 8y ago
    Maybe they should.
- chriswwweb 8y ago
  so what would you suggest if it's not binding, let people change their vote indefinitely for an infinite period of time? ;) It's sad article went through, but there is nothing wrong about having binding votes
myrryr 8y ago
It would be a good way to vote the direction YOU wanted, and try to avoid the repercussions of it. Who can tell why they pressed that button?
- timrichard 8y ago
  And such a coincidence that we're made aware of this "PEBKAC happens" when the law is a controversial one.
self_awareness 8y ago
I can't believe that people who have problems with operating a 3-button remote decide how the whole internet should work. Same stories with polish voters; mistake during voting. They have only one job: push the right button. Easiest explanation for this is that some people took money for the vote, they did push the button they've wanted to, and they just told the public it was a mistake. Because I can't imagine how it should be hard to confuse YES with NO. - Do you want ice cream? No. Sorry I meant yes! - Do you want to go see the movie? Yes. Sorry I've made a mistake, I meant to say no. Such stories suggest we're dealing with unstable individuals. - Do you want half of the world to act accordingly to our new set of rules? Yes. Sorry, no. I meant yes! No sorry, what I wanted to say is NO. Sorry it was a mistake! The people that made a mistake are unstable and should be treated as unstable.
- robert_foss 8y ago
  To be fair, the MEPs that pressed the wrong button belong to the 'Sweden Democrats', a party with Nazi roots. So one could argue that these are not the brightest of bulbs.
  - strokirk 8y ago
    I think it was the Social Democrats, not SD. https://www.svt.se/kultur/klart-eu-rostar-ja-till-nya-upphovsrattslagar https://www.svt.se/kultur/klart-eu-rostar-ja-till-nya-upphov...
    - dagw 8y ago
      It was both. 2 SD MEPs and one S MEP voted 'wrong', but in opposite directions.
- hpaavola 8y ago
  I don't know what the exact thing was that was voted on, but sometimes it can get complicated. Let's assume that there is a vote coming on road tolls. A member first proposes that "Let's implement road tolls". Then government officials give their response to that "Let's not implement road tolls." Then the speaker selects the governments response as the base for voting. Now if a member is for road tolls and votes "YES", that member is then voting against road tolls. Again, I don't know how the process went and what was actually voted on. I'm just saying that sometimes is might be somewhat complicated to understand what is the thing that is actually voted. Sure, this should be straightforward for any experienced politician, but occasionally newcomers make mistakes like these.
krzys 8y ago
People having problems with choosing correct button are responsible for setting law about internet for millions. Just great.
- chriswwweb 8y ago
  No, the article title here on hacker news is "fake news"! there were several votes, the main vote about the law itself would have passed anyway, the "yes" won with a significant margin, even if sweden would have voted differently ... sweden just did a mistake when voting about the questions if amendments should be discussed
gardaani 8y ago
According to Finland's national public broadcasting company, one Finnish MEP also pushed the wrong button. https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10707635 https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10707635: "However, Pietikäinen later said she voted wrong accidentally. Her intention was to support the directive." "Pietikäinen tosin kertoi myöhemmin äänestäneensä vahingossa väärin. Hänen tarkoituksensa oli ollut kannattaa esitystä." It seems that it is very easy to press wrong buttons.
- bjornedstrom 8y ago
  From what I understand, the voting order was changed last minute. I am not surprised people screw up in those circumstances.
- olodus 8y ago
  The Swedish reps who pushed wrong said there were some changes last minute to the agenda, confusing them and in effect probably caused the wrong button press. Though I haven't been able to find for certain if this was the case. I am glad most Swedish reps voted against but will definitely use my vote next election to try and remove the ones that voted for (yes there were some that voted for and not by mistake) and people incompetent enough to not know what button to press when it comes down to it.
bambax 8y ago
The title is misleading. The directive was approved by a large majority of 348 in favor, 274 against (spread of 74 votes). Before that, there was a vote about whether to vote on individual amendments; that vote (about voting on amendments) is the one discussed in the OP and was indeed only defeated by 5 votes. One individual amendment offered to delete article 13. It's possible that if that amendment had come to a vote it would have succeeded, but it's not certain -- and given the majority the directive enjoyed, it's quite unlikely. This directive is still an absolute catastrophe, the effects of which will be felt for a very long time. But articles like these don't quite help the fight.
- Reimersholme 8y ago
  Also, the group that miss-voted accidentally only have 2 votes, so even had they voted correctly the bill would have been defeated had everybody else voted the same.
- chriswwweb 8y ago
  Yes, you right, this article is trying to mislead the reader in several sentences, but the title here on hacker news is actually totally wrong, I would categorize it as "fake news", first the wording "got legalized" is weird, but most importantly the part "Article 13 gets legalized because Sweden pushed the wrong button" is just wrong as there were two votes, sweden did a mistake while voting for the second vote, which was about "if amendments should get discussed" I'm totally against so called article 13, I think it will be super bad for European startups, they will suffer the most, but trying to spread fake news just makes it worse because people you try to explain this don't take you serious anymore we need a report fake news button on hacker news
  - endymi0n 8y ago
    OP here, while we're at it, there should be a possibility to retract an article after posting. I've fact checked this and it looks like you're right, however I have no possibility to kill the article at the current moment.
ngold 8y ago
Some MEPs are now saying they accidentally voted the wrong way because the voting order was changed and they were confused: Enough MEPs Say They Mistakenly Voted For Articles 11 & 13 That The Vote Should Have Flipped; EU Parliament Says Too Bad 13 of them registered a correction to their vote on amendments, with 10 of those intending to vote for amendments. However, the corrections aren't used to affect the outcome. Edit: checking Techdirt's math: Official vote: 312 for, 317 against, 24 abstained MEPs that registered a voting correction (blank for abstain): Name Voted Intended Gerolf Annemans for Johannes Cornelis van Baalen against for Dita Charanzová for Martina Dlabajová for Antanas Guoga against for Eva Joly for Jo Leinen ? for Peter Lundgren against for Michèle Rivasi for Kristina Winberg against for Marek Plura for against Marita Ulvskog for against Daniel Buda against After corrections: 320 for, 314 against, 20 abstained So the vote would have had the opposite result if the corrected votes were used.
- 40dslf 8y ago
  Tough titty no? Or are they going to do like with Brexit and keep voting until they get what they want?
  - vidarh 8y ago
    Democracy can literally be described as keep voting until we get what we want. That it is seemingly considered ok to ridicule people for wanting to make use of their democratic rights to try to overturn decisions is worrying.
    - DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
      I think this is really about a more specific idea: that something will be voted about until it's turned around, but then it will be final, because it has been voted. It's kind of like how laws that don't get passed but have a strong lobby behind them always re-surface every few years in slightly different form, but once they pass, they're here to stay. I think it should always be an option to vote again if the general opinion on a subject changes. That works in both directions though.
- 8y ago
misja 8y ago
Too bad that some of our representatives seem to lack the mental capabilities to handle the 3-button voting system. On the other hand, who says that the reverse hasn't happened as well? I could imagine that there also were some 'yes' voters who accidentally pressed the wrong button.
- _ink_ 8y ago
  Indeed that is the case. I read that 13 people wanted to vote 'yes' but pressed 'no' and 2 people wanted to vote 'no' but pressed 'yes'. So it does not even out.
- dagw 8y ago
  At least among the Swedish MEPs two voted NO when they meant to vote YES and one voted YES when they meant to vote NO.
xpuente 8y ago
"wrong"
alexandernst 8y ago
You had one job...
- alexandernst 8y ago
  I'd like to know why this is being downvoted.
  - gus_massa 8y ago
    One of the unofficial rules of HN is: * No oneliners. Specialy memelike oneliners. For example, if someone says "moon" and you reply "That's no moon...it's a space station." you will get downvoted. One clear symptom is that someone else wrote the same comment (with allcaps, that breaks another rule). I'm not sure why that comment was not downvoted. (Note: I didn't downvote your comments or the comment of the other user.) You can write oneliners in special occasions, but it's much safer to write a longer comment and give more details. Another rule is: * Don't complain about downvotes. Luckily, your second comment didn't get downvote.
hanoz 8y ago
This is why you need some redundancy built into the voting mechanism, otherwise you're always going to get such mistakes. In the British Parliament you have to physically walk into a separate Aye or No lobby to register your vote. Some might think this an anachronism, but you don't tend to mill around in a crowded room with a load of people you disagree with without realising.
- sambeau 8y ago
  It's nearly happened: A minister inadvertently found himself in the wrong lobby in a Commons vote after a mix-up with a glass of water. Lib Dem MP Andrew Stunell was filling up a glass from a washroom inside one of the Commons lobbies where MPs cast their votes, when the doors closed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16746389 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16746389
  - Reason077 8y ago
    Well, the Lib Dems have always struggled with which side of the House they're on, so in this particular case it's not that surprising!
- gpmcadam 8y ago
  You often have to enter your email address twice and click a confirmation link to sign up to even the most straightforward mailing lists. But to vote on legislation affecting literally hundreds of millions of people for generations, just hit a button and there's no going back.
  - tialaramex 8y ago
    But there /is/ always going back. That's the thing. They can decide tomorrow, or next week, or next year that actually Article 13 is a bad idea and revoke it. There are reasons to support a different mechanism for voting, but the idea that this is irrevocable and so needs safeguards to prevent mistakes is not one.
    - 8y ago
blastbeat 8y ago
My first thought reading the headline was 'great, yet another "The Onion" article'. Anyway, it seems that some German delegates pushed the wrong button too: https://twitter.com/woelken/status/1110657088177487877 https://twitter.com/woelken/status/1110657088177487877 Evil to him who evil thinks.
- chriswwweb 8y ago
  Haha same here, I also thought it was an "The Onion" article
spectaclepiece 8y ago
This summarizes the utter incompetence on both sides of the political spectrum in Sweden. Not a proud day to be a Swede.
piokoch 8y ago
So, from what I read, it seems that rather large number of MPs pushed the wrong button. I guess that more and more MPs would confess that "wrong button" was pressed since European Parliament election is just around the corner (end of May). Although voters memory is rather short, MPs are afraid that it might actually persist for next 2 months.
- chopin 8y ago
  I am definitely going to vote by which button was pushed, not by which button was intended to push. A person who can't push the right button has no business being member of the EP.
endymi0n 8y ago
> The title is misleading. The directive was approved by a large majority of 348 in favor, 274 against (spread of 74 votes). Before that, there was a vote about whether to vote on individual amendments; that vote (about voting on amendments) is the one discussed in the OP and was indeed only defeated by 5 votes. OP here, you're right about that after doing some fact checking. I just retracted the article by hiding. My bad.
mojomark 8y ago
So, now, if someone gets murdered in the city square (public domain), are city officials charged with murder?
i4t 8y ago
You had ONE JOB.
yason 8y ago
It can be tricky with yes and no logic and how the issues are presented. I've read several proposals that were voted in my local city council, and without having excellent reading skills into the council jargon it would be really easy to vote wrong. To further negate the relations, there might be a vote for an opposing proposal, so if you want to support the original you vote no. I usually understand what I read relatively easily, including articles on complex algorithms, but had I had a seat in the city council these would've stunned me several times. For things with big impact like state parliament and EU votes there should be a clear announcement before the vote to clarify which "side" the voting works out to be.
VvR-Ox 8y ago
Another decision against humanity - nice! This happens when everyone just exists to gain more money and power.

107 points by endymi0n 8y ago

> they can have the record amended to show what their true intention was, but the vote is binding. Amazing rules, what a club to be in!

ElBarto 8y ago
I don't think any parliament will allow a new vote because a member claims (s)he made a mistake. That would create too many problems.
- djsumdog 8y ago
  I think in the US senate, a senator can request individual verification where each senator has to physically say and verify their vote.
- predakanga 8y ago
  I'm sure there are technicalities to it, but the Australian parliament allowed a new vote just this year.[0] In short, the governing party voted in favour of a motion that "It's okay to be white". The vote failed to pass, but the next day (amid condemnation) it was claimed that the vote was due to an administrative error. A new vote was held and the motion was defeated again, unanimously. I say there may be technicalities as apparently the vote was a "recommittal"[1], but on the face of it the parliament allowed a new vote because the members claimed to have made a mistake. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_OK_to_be_white#Australian_parliament_motion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_OK_to_be_white#Australi... [1]: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief08#detailed https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practi...
  - A2017U1 8y ago
    4chan really has a lot answer for when something that ridiculous gets voted upon in Parliament.
- NikkiA 8y ago
  Maybe they should.
chriswwweb 8y ago
so what would you suggest if it's not binding, let people change their vote indefinitely for an infinite period of time? ;) It's sad article went through, but there is nothing wrong about having binding votes

myrryr 8y ago

It would be a good way to vote the direction YOU wanted, and try to avoid the repercussions of it. Who can tell why they pressed that button?

timrichard 8y ago
And such a coincidence that we're made aware of this "PEBKAC happens" when the law is a controversial one.

self_awareness 8y ago

I can't believe that people who have problems with operating a 3-button remote decide how the whole internet should work. Same stories with polish voters; mistake during voting. They have only one job: push the right button. Easiest explanation for this is that some people took money for the vote, they did push the button they've wanted to, and they just told the public it was a mistake. Because I can't imagine how it should be hard to confuse YES with NO. - Do you want ice cream? No. Sorry I meant yes! - Do you want to go see the movie? Yes. Sorry I've made a mistake, I meant to say no. Such stories suggest we're dealing with unstable individuals. - Do you want half of the world to act accordingly to our new set of rules? Yes. Sorry, no. I meant yes! No sorry, what I wanted to say is NO. Sorry it was a mistake! The people that made a mistake are unstable and should be treated as unstable.

robert_foss 8y ago
To be fair, the MEPs that pressed the wrong button belong to the 'Sweden Democrats', a party with Nazi roots. So one could argue that these are not the brightest of bulbs.
- strokirk 8y ago
  I think it was the Social Democrats, not SD. https://www.svt.se/kultur/klart-eu-rostar-ja-till-nya-upphovsrattslagar https://www.svt.se/kultur/klart-eu-rostar-ja-till-nya-upphov...
  - dagw 8y ago
    It was both. 2 SD MEPs and one S MEP voted 'wrong', but in opposite directions.
hpaavola 8y ago
I don't know what the exact thing was that was voted on, but sometimes it can get complicated. Let's assume that there is a vote coming on road tolls. A member first proposes that "Let's implement road tolls". Then government officials give their response to that "Let's not implement road tolls." Then the speaker selects the governments response as the base for voting. Now if a member is for road tolls and votes "YES", that member is then voting against road tolls. Again, I don't know how the process went and what was actually voted on. I'm just saying that sometimes is might be somewhat complicated to understand what is the thing that is actually voted. Sure, this should be straightforward for any experienced politician, but occasionally newcomers make mistakes like these.

krzys 8y ago

People having problems with choosing correct button are responsible for setting law about internet for millions. Just great.

chriswwweb 8y ago
No, the article title here on hacker news is "fake news"! there were several votes, the main vote about the law itself would have passed anyway, the "yes" won with a significant margin, even if sweden would have voted differently ... sweden just did a mistake when voting about the questions if amendments should be discussed

gardaani 8y ago

According to Finland's national public broadcasting company, one Finnish MEP also pushed the wrong button. https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10707635 https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10707635: "However, Pietikäinen later said she voted wrong accidentally. Her intention was to support the directive." "Pietikäinen tosin kertoi myöhemmin äänestäneensä vahingossa väärin. Hänen tarkoituksensa oli ollut kannattaa esitystä." It seems that it is very easy to press wrong buttons.

bjornedstrom 8y ago
From what I understand, the voting order was changed last minute. I am not surprised people screw up in those circumstances.
olodus 8y ago
The Swedish reps who pushed wrong said there were some changes last minute to the agenda, confusing them and in effect probably caused the wrong button press. Though I haven't been able to find for certain if this was the case. I am glad most Swedish reps voted against but will definitely use my vote next election to try and remove the ones that voted for (yes there were some that voted for and not by mistake) and people incompetent enough to not know what button to press when it comes down to it.

bambax 8y ago

The title is misleading. The directive was approved by a large majority of 348 in favor, 274 against (spread of 74 votes). Before that, there was a vote about whether to vote on individual amendments; that vote (about voting on amendments) is the one discussed in the OP and was indeed only defeated by 5 votes. One individual amendment offered to delete article 13. It's possible that if that amendment had come to a vote it would have succeeded, but it's not certain -- and given the majority the directive enjoyed, it's quite unlikely. This directive is still an absolute catastrophe, the effects of which will be felt for a very long time. But articles like these don't quite help the fight.

Reimersholme 8y ago
Also, the group that miss-voted accidentally only have 2 votes, so even had they voted correctly the bill would have been defeated had everybody else voted the same.
chriswwweb 8y ago
Yes, you right, this article is trying to mislead the reader in several sentences, but the title here on hacker news is actually totally wrong, I would categorize it as "fake news", first the wording "got legalized" is weird, but most importantly the part "Article 13 gets legalized because Sweden pushed the wrong button" is just wrong as there were two votes, sweden did a mistake while voting for the second vote, which was about "if amendments should get discussed" I'm totally against so called article 13, I think it will be super bad for European startups, they will suffer the most, but trying to spread fake news just makes it worse because people you try to explain this don't take you serious anymore we need a report fake news button on hacker news
- endymi0n 8y ago
  OP here, while we're at it, there should be a possibility to retract an article after posting. I've fact checked this and it looks like you're right, however I have no possibility to kill the article at the current moment.

ngold 8y ago

Some MEPs are now saying they accidentally voted the wrong way because the voting order was changed and they were confused: Enough MEPs Say They Mistakenly Voted For Articles 11 & 13 That The Vote Should Have Flipped; EU Parliament Says Too Bad 13 of them registered a correction to their vote on amendments, with 10 of those intending to vote for amendments. However, the corrections aren't used to affect the outcome. Edit: checking Techdirt's math: Official vote: 312 for, 317 against, 24 abstained MEPs that registered a voting correction (blank for abstain): Name Voted Intended Gerolf Annemans for Johannes Cornelis van Baalen against for Dita Charanzová for Martina Dlabajová for Antanas Guoga against for Eva Joly for Jo Leinen ? for Peter Lundgren against for Michèle Rivasi for Kristina Winberg against for Marek Plura for against Marita Ulvskog for against Daniel Buda against After corrections: 320 for, 314 against, 20 abstained So the vote would have had the opposite result if the corrected votes were used.

40dslf 8y ago
Tough titty no? Or are they going to do like with Brexit and keep voting until they get what they want?
- vidarh 8y ago
  Democracy can literally be described as keep voting until we get what we want. That it is seemingly considered ok to ridicule people for wanting to make use of their democratic rights to try to overturn decisions is worrying.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
    I think this is really about a more specific idea: that something will be voted about until it's turned around, but then it will be final, because it has been voted. It's kind of like how laws that don't get passed but have a strong lobby behind them always re-surface every few years in slightly different form, but once they pass, they're here to stay. I think it should always be an option to vote again if the general opinion on a subject changes. That works in both directions though.
8y ago

misja 8y ago

Too bad that some of our representatives seem to lack the mental capabilities to handle the 3-button voting system. On the other hand, who says that the reverse hasn't happened as well? I could imagine that there also were some 'yes' voters who accidentally pressed the wrong button.

_ink_ 8y ago
Indeed that is the case. I read that 13 people wanted to vote 'yes' but pressed 'no' and 2 people wanted to vote 'no' but pressed 'yes'. So it does not even out.
dagw 8y ago
At least among the Swedish MEPs two voted NO when they meant to vote YES and one voted YES when they meant to vote NO.

xpuente 8y ago

"wrong"

alexandernst 8y ago

You had one job...

alexandernst 8y ago
I'd like to know why this is being downvoted.
- gus_massa 8y ago
  One of the unofficial rules of HN is: * No oneliners. Specialy memelike oneliners. For example, if someone says "moon" and you reply "That's no moon...it's a space station." you will get downvoted. One clear symptom is that someone else wrote the same comment (with allcaps, that breaks another rule). I'm not sure why that comment was not downvoted. (Note: I didn't downvote your comments or the comment of the other user.) You can write oneliners in special occasions, but it's much safer to write a longer comment and give more details. Another rule is: * Don't complain about downvotes. Luckily, your second comment didn't get downvote.

hanoz 8y ago

This is why you need some redundancy built into the voting mechanism, otherwise you're always going to get such mistakes. In the British Parliament you have to physically walk into a separate Aye or No lobby to register your vote. Some might think this an anachronism, but you don't tend to mill around in a crowded room with a load of people you disagree with without realising.

sambeau 8y ago
It's nearly happened: A minister inadvertently found himself in the wrong lobby in a Commons vote after a mix-up with a glass of water. Lib Dem MP Andrew Stunell was filling up a glass from a washroom inside one of the Commons lobbies where MPs cast their votes, when the doors closed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16746389 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16746389
- Reason077 8y ago
  Well, the Lib Dems have always struggled with which side of the House they're on, so in this particular case it's not that surprising!
gpmcadam 8y ago
You often have to enter your email address twice and click a confirmation link to sign up to even the most straightforward mailing lists. But to vote on legislation affecting literally hundreds of millions of people for generations, just hit a button and there's no going back.
- tialaramex 8y ago
  But there /is/ always going back. That's the thing. They can decide tomorrow, or next week, or next year that actually Article 13 is a bad idea and revoke it. There are reasons to support a different mechanism for voting, but the idea that this is irrevocable and so needs safeguards to prevent mistakes is not one.
  - 8y ago

blastbeat 8y ago

My first thought reading the headline was 'great, yet another "The Onion" article'. Anyway, it seems that some German delegates pushed the wrong button too: https://twitter.com/woelken/status/1110657088177487877 https://twitter.com/woelken/status/1110657088177487877 Evil to him who evil thinks.

chriswwweb 8y ago
Haha same here, I also thought it was an "The Onion" article

spectaclepiece 8y ago

This summarizes the utter incompetence on both sides of the political spectrum in Sweden. Not a proud day to be a Swede.

piokoch 8y ago

So, from what I read, it seems that rather large number of MPs pushed the wrong button. I guess that more and more MPs would confess that "wrong button" was pressed since European Parliament election is just around the corner (end of May). Although voters memory is rather short, MPs are afraid that it might actually persist for next 2 months.

chopin 8y ago
I am definitely going to vote by which button was pushed, not by which button was intended to push. A person who can't push the right button has no business being member of the EP.

endymi0n 8y ago

> The title is misleading. The directive was approved by a large majority of 348 in favor, 274 against (spread of 74 votes). Before that, there was a vote about whether to vote on individual amendments; that vote (about voting on amendments) is the one discussed in the OP and was indeed only defeated by 5 votes. OP here, you're right about that after doing some fact checking. I just retracted the article by hiding. My bad.

mojomark 8y ago

So, now, if someone gets murdered in the city square (public domain), are city officials charged with murder?

i4t 8y ago

You had ONE JOB.

yason 8y ago

It can be tricky with yes and no logic and how the issues are presented. I've read several proposals that were voted in my local city council, and without having excellent reading skills into the council jargon it would be really easy to vote wrong. To further negate the relations, there might be a vote for an opposing proposal, so if you want to support the original you vote no. I usually understand what I read relatively easily, including articles on complex algorithms, but had I had a seat in the city council these would've stunned me several times. For things with big impact like state parliament and EU votes there should be a clear announcement before the vote to clarify which "side" the voting works out to be.

VvR-Ox 8y ago

Another decision against humanity - nice! This happens when everyone just exists to gain more money and power.