4 ms·

Legislation isn't based on majority votes though...

bnj 6y ago
Sorry, it’s not clear if this is meant in sarcasm—- maybe I’m misinterpreting, but how exactly is legislation passed if not by majority vote?
- cam_l 6y ago
  Not OP, but at least in oz we live in a representative democracy. That means that though 51% may support the current government, any one piece of legislation only needs to have the support of the majority in parliament. It could have zero support in the community. It happens often enough when people are polled on the legislation itself, rather than party preferences, people overwhelmingly support positions which may even be antithetical to both sides of parliament. Climate change legislation has enjoyed overwhlming support in oz for years, even amongst a slim majority on the right. People overwhelming support environmental protections. But our parliament this week, under cover of covid, pushed through a massive regression in environemntal protections without even letting their own party discuss the legislation, let alone the opposition or the media.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Representatives are not always representative.
  - devin 6y ago
    See: Wisconsin. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wisconsin-e2-80-99s-governor-called-a-special-session-on-police-reform-republicans-stopped-it-after-30-seconds/ar-BB18AMSW https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wisconsin-e2-80-99s-... > The maps have exceeded their designers high expectations all decade long. In 2018, for example, Wisconsin voters re-elected a Democratic U.S. senator, backed Evers for governor over two-term Republican incumbent Scott Walker, placed Democrats in every elected statewide office, and preferred Democratic assembly candidates by a margin of 190,000 votes. Republicans held the chamber, 64-35. They won 64 percent of the seats, with 46 percent of the votes. It would be difficult to call Wisconsin a democracy with a straight face at this point.
    - ekianjo 6y ago
      > It would be difficult to call Wisconsin a democracy with a straight face at this point. I think you don't understand how things are working. Senators are elected by the people, at the seat level. You can see what's happening here in this post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-layers-republican-power-grabbing-wisconsin/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-l... > [in 2018] They [Democrats] won 53 percent of the vote and only 36 percent of the seats. However, that can be explained in part by the fact that Democrats had far more seats in which they weren’t running against a Republican opponent. Nearly half of the votes the Democrats earned were in districts where their candidates didn’t face significant opposition. In contested races, Republicans won more votes than Democrats. If you get 90% of votes for one seat where there is virtually no opposition, that has no bearing to the other seat where you lost 48% to 52%. That's actual democracy, and even direct democracy. This is also confirmed by the 17th Amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-17/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-17/ > The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Legislation isn't based on majority votes though... This only makes it worse. This year 51% of the population voted for Party B, so they have 51% of the legislature. They vote as a block, so they vote in anything supported by the majority of the coalition that Party B represents. So then you get bad laws that are only supported by 26% of people (51% of 51%). Next year Party A has 51% of the legislature, but not the Presidency, so they can't repeal it. A possible solution to this would be to allow for the repeal of any law that wouldn't currently have what it takes to pass, i.e. anyone can resubmit any existing law as a new bill and if it fails to pass both houses and earn the President's signature, it effects repeal of the existing law.
- kazagistar 6y ago
  It's even worse then that. The parties aren't even majority rule: everyone compromises on some issues, and is forced to select based on availability (which is determined by financials not democracy) and fear of the other side rather then positive belief, so I would argue that 26% is likely closer to 10% or less for many issues. And then of course there is the large chunk of people who find the views of both parties so uninspiring or outright disgusting to not want to vote at all. Its really surprising when any popular legislation is passed in any form, even watered down, in this mess of a system. Obviously though that is by design.

bnj 6y ago

Sorry, it’s not clear if this is meant in sarcasm—- maybe I’m misinterpreting, but how exactly is legislation passed if not by majority vote?

cam_l 6y ago
Not OP, but at least in oz we live in a representative democracy. That means that though 51% may support the current government, any one piece of legislation only needs to have the support of the majority in parliament. It could have zero support in the community. It happens often enough when people are polled on the legislation itself, rather than party preferences, people overwhelmingly support positions which may even be antithetical to both sides of parliament. Climate change legislation has enjoyed overwhlming support in oz for years, even amongst a slim majority on the right. People overwhelming support environmental protections. But our parliament this week, under cover of covid, pushed through a massive regression in environemntal protections without even letting their own party discuss the legislation, let alone the opposition or the media.
ekianjo 6y ago
Representatives are not always representative.
- devin 6y ago
  See: Wisconsin. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wisconsin-e2-80-99s-governor-called-a-special-session-on-police-reform-republicans-stopped-it-after-30-seconds/ar-BB18AMSW https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wisconsin-e2-80-99s-... > The maps have exceeded their designers high expectations all decade long. In 2018, for example, Wisconsin voters re-elected a Democratic U.S. senator, backed Evers for governor over two-term Republican incumbent Scott Walker, placed Democrats in every elected statewide office, and preferred Democratic assembly candidates by a margin of 190,000 votes. Republicans held the chamber, 64-35. They won 64 percent of the seats, with 46 percent of the votes. It would be difficult to call Wisconsin a democracy with a straight face at this point.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    > It would be difficult to call Wisconsin a democracy with a straight face at this point. I think you don't understand how things are working. Senators are elected by the people, at the seat level. You can see what's happening here in this post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-layers-republican-power-grabbing-wisconsin/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-l... > [in 2018] They [Democrats] won 53 percent of the vote and only 36 percent of the seats. However, that can be explained in part by the fact that Democrats had far more seats in which they weren’t running against a Republican opponent. Nearly half of the votes the Democrats earned were in districts where their candidates didn’t face significant opposition. In contested races, Republicans won more votes than Democrats. If you get 90% of votes for one seat where there is virtually no opposition, that has no bearing to the other seat where you lost 48% to 52%. That's actual democracy, and even direct democracy. This is also confirmed by the 17th Amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-17/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-17/ > The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Legislation isn't based on majority votes though... This only makes it worse. This year 51% of the population voted for Party B, so they have 51% of the legislature. They vote as a block, so they vote in anything supported by the majority of the coalition that Party B represents. So then you get bad laws that are only supported by 26% of people (51% of 51%). Next year Party A has 51% of the legislature, but not the Presidency, so they can't repeal it. A possible solution to this would be to allow for the repeal of any law that wouldn't currently have what it takes to pass, i.e. anyone can resubmit any existing law as a new bill and if it fails to pass both houses and earn the President's signature, it effects repeal of the existing law.

kazagistar 6y ago
It's even worse then that. The parties aren't even majority rule: everyone compromises on some issues, and is forced to select based on availability (which is determined by financials not democracy) and fear of the other side rather then positive belief, so I would argue that 26% is likely closer to 10% or less for many issues. And then of course there is the large chunk of people who find the views of both parties so uninspiring or outright disgusting to not want to vote at all. Its really surprising when any popular legislation is passed in any form, even watered down, in this mess of a system. Obviously though that is by design.