5 ms·

How do I allow laws? Or rather what does it mean to not “allow” a law? You are right. Terrorism and cp are commonly used excuses to enable even more surveillan

How do I allow laws? Or rather what does it mean to not “allow” a law? You are right. Terrorism and cp are commonly used excuses to enable even more surveillance. When you talk about “allowing laws” it makes it sound as if we somehow got conned into letting them have these laws. In reality powerfull people want these tools. Powerfull people get these tools. Where does the allowing happen exactly? And don’t tell me that all would be well if only we would vote for the other guy.

bambax 5y ago
Yes the wording is imperfect. I meant "accept", as in, not protest until they are repealed. Voting is useless as all main political parties typically agree on this.
josephcsible 5y ago
> what does it mean to not “allow” a law? Voting against any politicians who contribute to its passing, even if they're from your preferred political party.
- benlivengood 5y ago
  Vote for approval voting, ranked choice, or even instant runoff at every level of government so that voting against an incumbent at least has a viable candidate.
  - BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
    I worry that making voting more complicated and giving people more candidates to vote for might actually backfire. We already see this in American primary elections where the incumbent runs against a half dozen or more “nobodies” and seems to win on name recognition and vote splitting alone.
    - washadjeffmad 5y ago
      The problem is any winner-takes-all process. Ranked choice solves ticket splitting. For instance, many Americans heavily favored Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who were both policy candidates in 2020. With ranked choice, they would have been the P/VP pairing. Instead, it went to Joe Biden because the candidates all dropped out and gave him their endorsements months prior to the end of the primaries to prevent Sanders' nomination and to secure a little political capital. The current system is designed (to be able to) rob any candidate who builds popular support over the establishment. For instance, superdelegates are bullshit, but they're the tool the DNC decided on to prevent another Carter from happening, which is how they viewed Sanders. Biden didn't even campaign and ended up POTUS, and he hasn't done anything towards enacting any of the promises he gave lip service to during the debates. I just wonder if that's not backfiring, what is?
    - benlivengood 5y ago
      Primaries are also winner-take-all which is why incumbents have such an advantage. Alaska got rid of party primaries and so it'll be interesting to see how the next primary goes, which will be between the top four candidates voted for in the primary. Arguably 4 is too low a number to represent the varied interests of any state, and the first round will likely leave people unsatisfied until candidates can start researching the actual values preferences of their electorate and offer e.g. the top 4 ways to order the most important issues and alignments. I think there will be a strong force to abandon divisive hot-button issues that sound good on TV but are actually lower on most people's preference ordering.
- playguardin 5y ago
  Ah yes! The old democracy will fix it argument.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Little evidence for this strategy's efficacy. Single-issue voting doesn't carry a lot of weight and in many cases other candidates would be equally supportive of the policy. As I often point out, surveillance is bad but so is child abuse and complaining about surveillance without acknowledging that is a good way to get ignored.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    Single-issue voting has been effective for gun rights activists. But the problem is that while there is a lot of concentrated commitment among firearm owners to resisting gun laws, fewer people are as motivated on the front of surveillance; if you ask people, they might say they're against it, but it's not a priority issue. Whereas for firearms, a majority of Americans actually are in favour of more restrictions, but for those who are against them, it's a much higher priority for them. It's a classic example of the behaviour of collective action in public choice theory.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Single-issue voting in the primaries can be extremely effective. Case in point is how the NRA electorate dominates Republican primaries, even though the majority of Republicans actually support various gun control proposals (e.g. AWB).
BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
>” When you talk about “allowing laws” it makes it sound as if we somehow got conned into letting them have these laws.” This is a very Machiavellian and realpolitik take, so please keep that in mind. People in a democracy “allow” laws whenever they just continue to live normally. Sure, you can protest with signs and vote differently in the next election, but we know that’s not particularly effective at shaking the status quo. What does “not allowing” a law look like? Civil disobedience, defiance, harassing politicians, and trying to force change. In essence, it’s average people and activists using every tool at their disposal to force the politicians to act differently. We saw plenty of this in 2020.

bambax 5y ago

Yes the wording is imperfect. I meant "accept", as in, not protest until they are repealed. Voting is useless as all main political parties typically agree on this.

josephcsible 5y ago

> what does it mean to not “allow” a law? Voting against any politicians who contribute to its passing, even if they're from your preferred political party.

benlivengood 5y ago
Vote for approval voting, ranked choice, or even instant runoff at every level of government so that voting against an incumbent at least has a viable candidate.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  I worry that making voting more complicated and giving people more candidates to vote for might actually backfire. We already see this in American primary elections where the incumbent runs against a half dozen or more “nobodies” and seems to win on name recognition and vote splitting alone.
  - washadjeffmad 5y ago
    The problem is any winner-takes-all process. Ranked choice solves ticket splitting. For instance, many Americans heavily favored Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who were both policy candidates in 2020. With ranked choice, they would have been the P/VP pairing. Instead, it went to Joe Biden because the candidates all dropped out and gave him their endorsements months prior to the end of the primaries to prevent Sanders' nomination and to secure a little political capital. The current system is designed (to be able to) rob any candidate who builds popular support over the establishment. For instance, superdelegates are bullshit, but they're the tool the DNC decided on to prevent another Carter from happening, which is how they viewed Sanders. Biden didn't even campaign and ended up POTUS, and he hasn't done anything towards enacting any of the promises he gave lip service to during the debates. I just wonder if that's not backfiring, what is?
  - benlivengood 5y ago
    Primaries are also winner-take-all which is why incumbents have such an advantage. Alaska got rid of party primaries and so it'll be interesting to see how the next primary goes, which will be between the top four candidates voted for in the primary. Arguably 4 is too low a number to represent the varied interests of any state, and the first round will likely leave people unsatisfied until candidates can start researching the actual values preferences of their electorate and offer e.g. the top 4 ways to order the most important issues and alignments. I think there will be a strong force to abandon divisive hot-button issues that sound good on TV but are actually lower on most people's preference ordering.
playguardin 5y ago
Ah yes! The old democracy will fix it argument.
anigbrowl 5y ago
Little evidence for this strategy's efficacy. Single-issue voting doesn't carry a lot of weight and in many cases other candidates would be equally supportive of the policy. As I often point out, surveillance is bad but so is child abuse and complaining about surveillance without acknowledging that is a good way to get ignored.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  Single-issue voting has been effective for gun rights activists. But the problem is that while there is a lot of concentrated commitment among firearm owners to resisting gun laws, fewer people are as motivated on the front of surveillance; if you ask people, they might say they're against it, but it's not a priority issue. Whereas for firearms, a majority of Americans actually are in favour of more restrictions, but for those who are against them, it's a much higher priority for them. It's a classic example of the behaviour of collective action in public choice theory.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Single-issue voting in the primaries can be extremely effective. Case in point is how the NRA electorate dominates Republican primaries, even though the majority of Republicans actually support various gun control proposals (e.g. AWB).

BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago

>” When you talk about “allowing laws” it makes it sound as if we somehow got conned into letting them have these laws.” This is a very Machiavellian and realpolitik take, so please keep that in mind. People in a democracy “allow” laws whenever they just continue to live normally. Sure, you can protest with signs and vote differently in the next election, but we know that’s not particularly effective at shaking the status quo. What does “not allowing” a law look like? Civil disobedience, defiance, harassing politicians, and trying to force change. In essence, it’s average people and activists using every tool at their disposal to force the politicians to act differently. We saw plenty of this in 2020.