5 ms·

Then you haven't understood that direct democracy works by convincing fellow citicens to vote for a new idea or direction. People are critical, especially if th

by Rochus 3y ago

Then you haven't understood that direct democracy works by convincing fellow citicens to vote for a new idea or direction. People are critical, especially if the new idea or direction restricts their comfort. So you can't just claim anything, you have to win trust with authority and evidence. But it seems that this committee would rather go to court than convince fellow citizens of the validity of their arguments.

yareal 3y ago
Democracy is also vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority, apathy, disenfranchisement, and multiple concerns that compete for head space. It's also slow, and the legal system exists specifically to address concerns like this. If a cop is busting heads, you don't wait to elect a new sheriff, you bring a lawsuit to fix the acute problem. If a department is systematically harming a group, you can try to elect someone who will make this their project, or you can get an intervention to prevent further harm via the legal system. Using the legal system to prevent acute harm is both correct and reasonable, even in a democracy.
- Rochus 3y ago
  > Democracy is also vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority Democracy is about the majority; and in Switzerland - in contrast to most other democracies - it's the majority of the real population, not just an elite class, and the people directly decide about real problems, not just who should represent them. And there are even provisions which assure that local concerns are sufficiently considered. You should inform yourself about this great political system. > Using the legal system to prevent acute harm is both correct and reasonable In the present case, it's clearly a misuse; it's a lobby organization with a lot of money that pro forma puts forward an association of old women so that with this sleight of hand the complaint is accepted by the court at all on a subject where the court has no jurisdiction at all. The aim is to undermine a democratically made decision against the will of the people, i.e. exactly the opposite of a democratic process.
  - yareal 3y ago
    Go google Tyranny of the Majority. Then respond after educating yourself. Unless you genuinely believe that the majority always makes the correct decision. In which case I can't help you.
    - Rochus 3y ago
      Then take the chance and make a name for yourself by proposing a better state system than the one in Switzerland. I hope you are not suggesting the tyranny of minorities, on which various works also exist. It is in the nature of human beings that a few will always be dissatisfied, no matter how well off they are or what form of society is applied. The sovereignty of the Swiss people is a compromise that came about on a voluntary basis through the coming together of people from different regions and languages. No one is forced to live in Switzerland, and yet a considerable part of the world seems to want to do so.
      - yareal 3y ago
        Switzerland didn't allow all women to vote until 1990, and didn't allow any women to vote until 1971. You might say, will they did eventually and recently fix that, but what systemic inequalities allowed that to last so long? For what it's worth, I do think direct democracy is good, but I don't think direct democracy always solves the most urgent problems or ensures that nonmajority people can survive. Let me be extra clear, Swiss voting system sounds pretty good. But it's not flawless. It can even be the best system in widespread use and not be flawless. The will of the majority can be wrong, and it needs to be acceptable to challenge it. Here in the USA the will of the majority was to segregate schools and prevent Black kids from attending them. That's what the majority wanted. It was wrong, and the minority using the courts to overturn the will of the majority is correct. Waiting to convince a new generation to integrate would do irreparable harm. Challenges to the majority viewpoint are crucial and healthy and normal in a democracy. Whether that majority is conservative or progressive, we need to test the results regularly.
        Rochus 3y ago

by Rochus 3y ago

yareal 3y ago

Democracy is also vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority, apathy, disenfranchisement, and multiple concerns that compete for head space. It's also slow, and the legal system exists specifically to address concerns like this. If a cop is busting heads, you don't wait to elect a new sheriff, you bring a lawsuit to fix the acute problem. If a department is systematically harming a group, you can try to elect someone who will make this their project, or you can get an intervention to prevent further harm via the legal system. Using the legal system to prevent acute harm is both correct and reasonable, even in a democracy.

Rochus 3y ago
> Democracy is also vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority Democracy is about the majority; and in Switzerland - in contrast to most other democracies - it's the majority of the real population, not just an elite class, and the people directly decide about real problems, not just who should represent them. And there are even provisions which assure that local concerns are sufficiently considered. You should inform yourself about this great political system. > Using the legal system to prevent acute harm is both correct and reasonable In the present case, it's clearly a misuse; it's a lobby organization with a lot of money that pro forma puts forward an association of old women so that with this sleight of hand the complaint is accepted by the court at all on a subject where the court has no jurisdiction at all. The aim is to undermine a democratically made decision against the will of the people, i.e. exactly the opposite of a democratic process.
- yareal 3y ago
  Go google Tyranny of the Majority. Then respond after educating yourself. Unless you genuinely believe that the majority always makes the correct decision. In which case I can't help you.
  - Rochus 3y ago
    Then take the chance and make a name for yourself by proposing a better state system than the one in Switzerland. I hope you are not suggesting the tyranny of minorities, on which various works also exist. It is in the nature of human beings that a few will always be dissatisfied, no matter how well off they are or what form of society is applied. The sovereignty of the Swiss people is a compromise that came about on a voluntary basis through the coming together of people from different regions and languages. No one is forced to live in Switzerland, and yet a considerable part of the world seems to want to do so.
    - yareal 3y ago
      Switzerland didn't allow all women to vote until 1990, and didn't allow any women to vote until 1971. You might say, will they did eventually and recently fix that, but what systemic inequalities allowed that to last so long? For what it's worth, I do think direct democracy is good, but I don't think direct democracy always solves the most urgent problems or ensures that nonmajority people can survive. Let me be extra clear, Swiss voting system sounds pretty good. But it's not flawless. It can even be the best system in widespread use and not be flawless. The will of the majority can be wrong, and it needs to be acceptable to challenge it. Here in the USA the will of the majority was to segregate schools and prevent Black kids from attending them. That's what the majority wanted. It was wrong, and the minority using the courts to overturn the will of the majority is correct. Waiting to convince a new generation to integrate would do irreparable harm. Challenges to the majority viewpoint are crucial and healthy and normal in a democracy. Whether that majority is conservative or progressive, we need to test the results regularly.
      - Rochus 3y ago