4 ms·

So, the article is saying that by getting proponents to make their case in writing, it forces them to think things through and avoid fecklessness. Isn't that h

So, the article is saying that by getting proponents to make their case in writing, it forces them to think things through and avoid fecklessness. Isn't that how the court system works? And yet, despite rulings from the supreme court, a significant number of elected representatives and, according to opinion polls, voters, continue to challenge the result of the US presidential election. What conclusion might we draw from this? I'm not asking for advocacy about the legitimacy of the election so much as examining the process for establishing the legitimacy of the result. How's that going?

Raidion 6y ago
I think this can turn (or devolve) into a discussion about the flaws of democracy, but which really don't apply in these situations. At most companies, there is a pretty clear escalation pathway to help resolve those who refuse to align with the organization's reality. Even in open source projects, there can be some sort of "vote" to establish the organization's "truth" and remove those who disagree. The US government has guarantees that certain people have voices (even if the specific mouthpiece can be unseated in a few edge cases), and those guarantees don't exist in most private or even somewhat public institutions.