3 ms·

Requiring 60%+ just means unfairly favoring the status quo over the will of the majority? :)

somenameforme 4y ago
It's not really about favoring anything, but about preventing the degenerate case of democracy - a tyranny of the majority. It's the reason a president can veto congress, a judge can 'veto' a law both congress and the president agreed upon, or why Rhode Island has just as much influence as California in the Senate. "Fairness" being seen as the same as to majority > all would just result in what we've seen happen with our democracy experiments in places like the Mideast. The majority group just ends up using democracy as a cudgel against minority groups. Those minority groups of course don't just stand idly by and next thing you know the entire system is in meltdown and beelining right towards the next iron fist.
- arrow7000 4y ago
  You're right. Far better to have a tyranny of the minority instead.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    Minority groups cannot pass laws by themselves. Their one and only "power" is to prevent the majority from being able to arbitrarily impose their will on everybody else. Of course the other side of this coin is that a minority group can prevent "positive" change from being enacted by a thin majority. But in general this cost pales in comparison to the alternative system where by merit of having a simple majority, a majority group can impose their every whim and desire on the every minority group with absolutely no restraint. If you can solve both problems in some way, do feel free to share - and not only here. You'd have solved a core problem of political science!
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Minority groups cannot pass laws by themselves. Yes, they can, especially where the combination of FPTP with gerrymandered districts, unequal allocation (by population) of seats (in all three of the Senate and, because of granularity limits, the House and, as a consequence of both of those, in the Electoral College) makes it possible for a minority with the right geographic distribution to have majority control of political institutions.

It's not really about favoring anything, but about preventing the degenerate case of democracy - a tyranny of the majority. It's the reason a president can veto congress, a judge can 'veto' a law both congress and the president agreed upon, or why Rhode Island has just as much influence as California in the Senate. "Fairness" being seen as the same as to majority > all would just result in what we've seen happen with our democracy experiments in places like the Mideast. The majority group just ends up using democracy as a cudgel against minority groups. Those minority groups of course don't just stand idly by and next thing you know the entire system is in meltdown and beelining right towards the next iron fist.

arrow7000 4y ago
You're right. Far better to have a tyranny of the minority instead.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  Minority groups cannot pass laws by themselves. Their one and only "power" is to prevent the majority from being able to arbitrarily impose their will on everybody else. Of course the other side of this coin is that a minority group can prevent "positive" change from being enacted by a thin majority. But in general this cost pales in comparison to the alternative system where by merit of having a simple majority, a majority group can impose their every whim and desire on the every minority group with absolutely no restraint. If you can solve both problems in some way, do feel free to share - and not only here. You'd have solved a core problem of political science!
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Minority groups cannot pass laws by themselves. Yes, they can, especially where the combination of FPTP with gerrymandered districts, unequal allocation (by population) of seats (in all three of the Senate and, because of granularity limits, the House and, as a consequence of both of those, in the Electoral College) makes it possible for a minority with the right geographic distribution to have majority control of political institutions.