5 ms·

Is it really a democracy if you keep pushing the same legislation over and over again until the people sleep on it once?

wolverine876 5y ago
Elect someone else
- squarefoot 5y ago
  Sometimes it's too late. The best dictator in the western world isn't the one who sends the army down the streets to shoot protesters, but the one who controls information so that people after years of being dazed by the same propaganda will vote him in power without any coercion. Sadly bad rulers sometimes have more resources than good ones, which turns out in more online/tv/radio/newspaper presence used to spread their propaganda. If we could force somehow politicians to count on the same exact public exposure, from rallies to apparently trivial things such as tweets, that would possibly change something, but to me a similar scenario in this universe is near science fiction.
- Abfrage 5y ago
  The election to the EU Parliament is a farce. The parliament has no power. It cannot propose laws. It only votes on the laws of the Commission. In the last election, the people could elect the President of the Commission. The person elected did not get the office. They simply put von der Leyen in that position while she was investigated in the German parliament.
  - pas 5y ago
    The power to veto is not a farce.
    - blibble 5y ago
      it is because the commission just has to bide its time once the law is passed future parliaments can't modify or repeal it
      - pas 5y ago
        it doesn't depend on time. the parliament can reject it every single time without it ever getting tired. and since the MEPs represent the same people who elect governments who then delegate to the commission, it's strange if the commission continues to propose regulations that are unpopular.
        blibble 5y ago
        you're thinking on a sub 5 year scale the commission can wait for a parliament that will pass its legislation and once it's passed: that's it, future parliaments can do nothing about it and if a member state wants it gone: it has to leave the EU entirely and politically the commission is the same as it has always been (by design)
        pas 5y ago
        the commission does what the member states want. obviously it has its own agency in the matters, but members don't send someone who would totally disregard their wishes. the whole problem with these security-privacy ideas is that the member governments want to reign in the Internet, just as they did with every other phenomena for the past hundreds of years. (with varying degrees of "success".) CSAM is especially a big red cloth that catches the eye of governments. It's not like there was less child abuse before the Internet, and if there were absolutely no CSAM on it from tomorrow ther wouldn't be less actual abuse... :/
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    > In the last election, the people could elect the President of the Commission. What are you basing this on? The President of the Commission is, by law, proposed by the European Council and validated or not by the European Parliament. Since there was no single majority party after the election, it's not completely surprising that backroom deals led to a different president than the desire of the party holding the most seats.
    - 66fm472tjy7 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Commission#Spitzenkandidat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Comm... > The Spitzenkandidat of the largest party would then have a mandate to assume the Commission Presidency While this is not de jure, German-speaking media did report on the 2019 election as if the above were consensus. It is my understanding that this was not the case in all EU countries.
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        Interesting, I had never heard of this, and this was not in any way how the election was presented in Romania where I live.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Having done a lot of work in politics, I see the same things frequently: how easy it is for even a few people to accomplish things with a little effort (and that's with a level of organization and management that is shockingly low - as in, if you have competent business skills, you'll walk in and think 'this can't possibly be as bad as it looks'), and then on the outside there are a lot of people calling it a 'farce', saying it's hopeless, etc. etc. It's just kind of silly, like people telling me heavier-than-air flight is impossible. OK, if that's what you obviously want to think. It's like the naysayers for anything, such as startups. 'It doesn't work', 'it can't be done', 'nobody will let you', blah blah blah. And all the time you are doing it. What can you say to them?
- no_time 5y ago
  Not so simple since you only have one vote and politicians have thousands of choices to make during their time in office. I strongly oppose domestic spying laws like this, AND I oppose uneducated immigration too. There is no party that shares both of these views. In other words the current system will always boil down to choosing between bad options that will screw you over some way or another. I wish there was an alternative...
  - A_non_e-moose 5y ago
    Direct democracy a la Switzerland where issues are put up for vote for the entire population? Although for direct democracy to be effective you would need a highly educated and politically engaged population
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      Judging by how low the vaccination rate is for rich and developed Switzerland in comparison to poorer countries like Spain or Portugal, I stopped assuming that most of the population there is "highly educated" as you put it. No offense to the Swiss. Maybe some Swiss can clarify why their population is so anti-vax, as it boggles my mind. My point is not to say that such a direct democratic system wouldn't be effective, I'm just saying that correlation != causation, as in the case of Switzerland, I attribute its success as a country more to it being a neutral banking heaven for the world elite for decades and being in a very fortunate geo-political location that was spared the destruction of war which helped it attract tons of foreign talent and capital, rather than to its direct democratic system and domestic educated population. I could also be wrong of course.
      - spidersouris 5y ago
        Switzerland has 64% of its population vaccinated [1]. It's not that low compared to other Western countries. It's as much as the United States [2]. What makes you say that? [1] https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/switzerland/ https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-m... [2] https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/united-states/ https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-m...
sputr 5y ago
Yes, yes it is. The problem is, that we (as in, "not the rich and powerful") are not playing the game of democracy correctly. Protesting to stop a bill passing is the "you f-ed up, so you're panicking, and maybe you'll stop it" move. If it keeps happening, it just means you did not learn your lesson. What you should have been doing is actively fighting to set rules the way you want them. Both by electing the right people and, more importantly, actually, funding lobbying efforts.
- chupy 5y ago
  What you should have been doing is actively fighting to set rules the way you want them.Both by electing the right people and, more importantly, actually, funding lobbying efforts. Maybe we should actively fight against the existence of lobby groups. The lobby groups in most cases push for legislation that is good for them (companies) and not for the people.
  - sputr 5y ago
    I hear what you are saying, but sadly that's like fighting against democracy. Lobbying is a natural party of a democratic system, just like political parties. You can try and outlaw it, but you'll only make the problem way worse. And it's not inherently a problem. It's not even slanted against the interests of the population. The only reason we have a problem is because "the rich and powerful" understand that this is how democracy works and everyone else ... wishes it was different. The solution to just about all our problems is simple: stop wanting democracy to be something it isn't and start "using" it correctly - namely, realize that to HAVE power you need to SPEND money. And no, taxes ain't it. The great thing is that "the people's" money is way more effective (i.e. it's more expansive to get politicians to do immoral acts than it is for them to do moral acts). Plus, we have more of it (10EUR/USD per month times the entire population is ... a lot of money). We just have to start.
- A_non_e-moose 5y ago
  How do we, the "not the rich and powerful" fund lobbying efforts, considering current competitors?
- 5y ago

wolverine876 5y ago

Elect someone else

squarefoot 5y ago
Sometimes it's too late. The best dictator in the western world isn't the one who sends the army down the streets to shoot protesters, but the one who controls information so that people after years of being dazed by the same propaganda will vote him in power without any coercion. Sadly bad rulers sometimes have more resources than good ones, which turns out in more online/tv/radio/newspaper presence used to spread their propaganda. If we could force somehow politicians to count on the same exact public exposure, from rallies to apparently trivial things such as tweets, that would possibly change something, but to me a similar scenario in this universe is near science fiction.
Abfrage 5y ago
The election to the EU Parliament is a farce. The parliament has no power. It cannot propose laws. It only votes on the laws of the Commission. In the last election, the people could elect the President of the Commission. The person elected did not get the office. They simply put von der Leyen in that position while she was investigated in the German parliament.
- pas 5y ago
  The power to veto is not a farce.
  - blibble 5y ago
    it is because the commission just has to bide its time once the law is passed future parliaments can't modify or repeal it
    - pas 5y ago
      it doesn't depend on time. the parliament can reject it every single time without it ever getting tired. and since the MEPs represent the same people who elect governments who then delegate to the commission, it's strange if the commission continues to propose regulations that are unpopular.
      - blibble 5y ago
        you're thinking on a sub 5 year scale the commission can wait for a parliament that will pass its legislation and once it's passed: that's it, future parliaments can do nothing about it and if a member state wants it gone: it has to leave the EU entirely and politically the commission is the same as it has always been (by design)
        pas 5y ago
        the commission does what the member states want. obviously it has its own agency in the matters, but members don't send someone who would totally disregard their wishes. the whole problem with these security-privacy ideas is that the member governments want to reign in the Internet, just as they did with every other phenomena for the past hundreds of years. (with varying degrees of "success".) CSAM is especially a big red cloth that catches the eye of governments. It's not like there was less child abuse before the Internet, and if there were absolutely no CSAM on it from tomorrow ther wouldn't be less actual abuse... :/
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > In the last election, the people could elect the President of the Commission. What are you basing this on? The President of the Commission is, by law, proposed by the European Council and validated or not by the European Parliament. Since there was no single majority party after the election, it's not completely surprising that backroom deals led to a different president than the desire of the party holding the most seats.
  - 66fm472tjy7 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Commission#Spitzenkandidat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Comm... > The Spitzenkandidat of the largest party would then have a mandate to assume the Commission Presidency While this is not de jure, German-speaking media did report on the 2019 election as if the above were consensus. It is my understanding that this was not the case in all EU countries.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      Interesting, I had never heard of this, and this was not in any way how the election was presented in Romania where I live.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Having done a lot of work in politics, I see the same things frequently: how easy it is for even a few people to accomplish things with a little effort (and that's with a level of organization and management that is shockingly low - as in, if you have competent business skills, you'll walk in and think 'this can't possibly be as bad as it looks'), and then on the outside there are a lot of people calling it a 'farce', saying it's hopeless, etc. etc. It's just kind of silly, like people telling me heavier-than-air flight is impossible. OK, if that's what you obviously want to think. It's like the naysayers for anything, such as startups. 'It doesn't work', 'it can't be done', 'nobody will let you', blah blah blah. And all the time you are doing it. What can you say to them?
no_time 5y ago
Not so simple since you only have one vote and politicians have thousands of choices to make during their time in office. I strongly oppose domestic spying laws like this, AND I oppose uneducated immigration too. There is no party that shares both of these views. In other words the current system will always boil down to choosing between bad options that will screw you over some way or another. I wish there was an alternative...
- A_non_e-moose 5y ago
  Direct democracy a la Switzerland where issues are put up for vote for the entire population? Although for direct democracy to be effective you would need a highly educated and politically engaged population
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    Judging by how low the vaccination rate is for rich and developed Switzerland in comparison to poorer countries like Spain or Portugal, I stopped assuming that most of the population there is "highly educated" as you put it. No offense to the Swiss. Maybe some Swiss can clarify why their population is so anti-vax, as it boggles my mind. My point is not to say that such a direct democratic system wouldn't be effective, I'm just saying that correlation != causation, as in the case of Switzerland, I attribute its success as a country more to it being a neutral banking heaven for the world elite for decades and being in a very fortunate geo-political location that was spared the destruction of war which helped it attract tons of foreign talent and capital, rather than to its direct democratic system and domestic educated population. I could also be wrong of course.
    - spidersouris 5y ago
      Switzerland has 64% of its population vaccinated [1]. It's not that low compared to other Western countries. It's as much as the United States [2]. What makes you say that? [1] https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/switzerland/ https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-m... [2] https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/united-states/ https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-m...

sputr 5y ago

Yes, yes it is. The problem is, that we (as in, "not the rich and powerful") are not playing the game of democracy correctly. Protesting to stop a bill passing is the "you f-ed up, so you're panicking, and maybe you'll stop it" move. If it keeps happening, it just means you did not learn your lesson. What you should have been doing is actively fighting to set rules the way you want them. Both by electing the right people and, more importantly, actually, funding lobbying efforts.

chupy 5y ago
What you should have been doing is actively fighting to set rules the way you want them.Both by electing the right people and, more importantly, actually, funding lobbying efforts. Maybe we should actively fight against the existence of lobby groups. The lobby groups in most cases push for legislation that is good for them (companies) and not for the people.
- sputr 5y ago
  I hear what you are saying, but sadly that's like fighting against democracy. Lobbying is a natural party of a democratic system, just like political parties. You can try and outlaw it, but you'll only make the problem way worse. And it's not inherently a problem. It's not even slanted against the interests of the population. The only reason we have a problem is because "the rich and powerful" understand that this is how democracy works and everyone else ... wishes it was different. The solution to just about all our problems is simple: stop wanting democracy to be something it isn't and start "using" it correctly - namely, realize that to HAVE power you need to SPEND money. And no, taxes ain't it. The great thing is that "the people's" money is way more effective (i.e. it's more expansive to get politicians to do immoral acts than it is for them to do moral acts). Plus, we have more of it (10EUR/USD per month times the entire population is ... a lot of money). We just have to start.
A_non_e-moose 5y ago
How do we, the "not the rich and powerful" fund lobbying efforts, considering current competitors?
5y ago