3 ms·
Not sure about that: unanimity means that anyone can hold hostage the whole process and make arbitrary demands in exchange for their vote, so it really only wor
by devit 6y ago
Not sure about that: unanimity means that anyone can hold hostage the whole process and make arbitrary demands in exchange for their vote, so it really only works when everyone can be trusted to act in good faith or when it doesn't matter if the process is indefinitely blocked.
- gorgoiler 6y agoThat’s a good point. For me, situations with a bad faith actor are edge cases and there are ways to remove bad actors from the decision making process that are separate to the decision making process itself. Not really refuting your point, and definitely thinking about it in specific contexts. For example a consistent bad faith actor on a team at work can expect to eventually be removed from the team, and avoiding hiring these people (or bringing them into decision making processes) is one of the goals of a good hiring process. It’s usually framed as “culture fit”, to drop another euphemism.
- HelloMcFly 6y agoPolitically, situations with a bad faith actor are not edge cases. That has a way of cascading down into all different aspects of society.
- mamon 6y agoSomewhat related example: requiring unanimity in parliament is what drove Poland to it's fall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto
- pnw_hazor 6y agoThat is one reason why each side and the court has a hand in selecting/disqualifying jurors. Neither side is likely be in love with the jury they get, but adversarial process introduces the fairest outcome we could expect.