6 ms·

At the risk of just repeating a previous comment, if you actually want to live in a democracy you have to trust the electorate at some level. I don't know the s

by pc86 2y ago

At the risk of just repeating a previous comment, if you actually want to live in a democracy you have to trust the electorate at some level. I don't know the specifics of this case but if it's clear cut corruption it should be easy to make that case to the electorate and absolutely destroy Le Pen in the election. If it's not that easy, then banning her from running is even worse.

add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
Weird time in history to be a maximalist on trusting electorates.
eviks 2y ago
That's what happened - some officials trusted the electorate at some level and decided that the rules the electorate chose to make via their representatives should be followed. Those officials also trust the electorate to change the rules if they want to.
- animuchan 2y ago
  That's a very charitable way of explaining away literally anything. Let me try: It's not like Putin started a war, but rather some officials trusted the electorate at some level and decided that the rules the electorate chose to make via their representatives should be followed. The representatives being Putin and friends. Those officials also trust the electorate to change the rules if they want to. There were no actual attempts at a coup btw, so the electorate is evidently happy with this.
  - eviks 2y ago
    Your try failed due to major inconsistencies with reality, so no, turns out you can't explain literally anything.
    - animuchan 2y ago
      The list of inconsistencies you gave, while complete, is also empty.
xracy 2y ago
I mean, "trust the electorate" sounds like a nice ideal, but I think it conveniently ignores the shithose of news and information that makes its way into the public discourse. We can't agree on basic facts in most places. What hope do we have to "trust the electorate" when most people are given straight propaganda and they buy it whole cloth. If you want to live in the world where we "trust the electorate" you first have to figure out how to make the electorate informed. In the meantime, I would gladly accept equally applied and adjudicated laws as a way to remove corrupt individuals from the electable population. A lot of places do this already, so making it so someone can't run for a given election cycle seems like a relatively small slap on the wrist compared to barring felons from ever being allowed to vote or hold office.
darthrupert 2y ago
You seem to deliberately ignore how easily people are manipulated. Just rulers have a responsibility to defend against that. The marketplace of ideas as a primary political decision method was a dumb idea.
jonathanstrange 2y ago
They applied a law against corruption for which Le Pen herself voted. At some point, you need to trust the laws that elected members of parliament have enacted and also apply it to politicians.
piva00 2y ago
Counterpoint: USA's presidential elections 2024.
tpm 2y ago
At some level, yes. At the level of letting convicted criminals run for the highest office, no, that would be stupid. > it should be easy to make that case to the electorate It turns out if you have enough money for endless propaganda it is easy to make any case to the electorate. And who will be making the case anyway? The state cannot because it has to be inpartial in the elections; their opponents have a clear agenda (they want to be the president) so it's easy to dismiss their case. So that leaves no one with standing. > If it's not that easy, then banning her from running is even worse. If the result is that a convicted criminal will not be elected into the highest office of the state, that's not a worse outcome, that's a perfect outcome.
- overfeed 2y ago
  Allowing some people to be above the law is a bad idea in general. Selecting elected officials to be above the law in particularly is ill-thought-out, IMO. Perverse incentives abound . Elections shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail card.
surgical_fire 2y ago
Only when the rules are followed. For democracy to work properly politicians need to follow the rules.
- glandium 2y ago
  The problem is when rules don't apply the same to all politicians.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    That's a claim. You should back it up. In the case of EU are there other politicians who embezzled funds that were let off the hook?
    - glandium 2y ago
      Here's one: Jacques Chirac was condemned in 2011 to 2 years with suspension (so, less than Le Pen) for something very similar (party members paid for fictitious jobs at the Mairie de Paris when he was mayor), and no ineligibility (so again, different consequences).
      - matthewdgreen 2y ago
        So it sounds like other politicians have indeed been convicted of similar things. The difference in punishment would then require you to examine the difference in the severity of the actions, which is beyond my pay grade.
      - surgical_fire 2y ago
        Your example was of a politician being condemned. It seems that the system does work as intended after all. As for the length of punishment, we would have to look in detail what each did. Two murders may result is different length of imprisonment.
        glandium 2y ago

by pc86 2y ago

add-sub-mul-div 2y ago

Weird time in history to be a maximalist on trusting electorates.

eviks 2y ago

That's what happened - some officials trusted the electorate at some level and decided that the rules the electorate chose to make via their representatives should be followed. Those officials also trust the electorate to change the rules if they want to.

animuchan 2y ago
That's a very charitable way of explaining away literally anything. Let me try: It's not like Putin started a war, but rather some officials trusted the electorate at some level and decided that the rules the electorate chose to make via their representatives should be followed. The representatives being Putin and friends. Those officials also trust the electorate to change the rules if they want to. There were no actual attempts at a coup btw, so the electorate is evidently happy with this.
- eviks 2y ago
  Your try failed due to major inconsistencies with reality, so no, turns out you can't explain literally anything.
  - animuchan 2y ago
    The list of inconsistencies you gave, while complete, is also empty.

xracy 2y ago

I mean, "trust the electorate" sounds like a nice ideal, but I think it conveniently ignores the shithose of news and information that makes its way into the public discourse. We can't agree on basic facts in most places. What hope do we have to "trust the electorate" when most people are given straight propaganda and they buy it whole cloth. If you want to live in the world where we "trust the electorate" you first have to figure out how to make the electorate informed. In the meantime, I would gladly accept equally applied and adjudicated laws as a way to remove corrupt individuals from the electable population. A lot of places do this already, so making it so someone can't run for a given election cycle seems like a relatively small slap on the wrist compared to barring felons from ever being allowed to vote or hold office.

darthrupert 2y ago

You seem to deliberately ignore how easily people are manipulated. Just rulers have a responsibility to defend against that. The marketplace of ideas as a primary political decision method was a dumb idea.

jonathanstrange 2y ago

They applied a law against corruption for which Le Pen herself voted. At some point, you need to trust the laws that elected members of parliament have enacted and also apply it to politicians.

piva00 2y ago

Counterpoint: USA's presidential elections 2024.

tpm 2y ago

At some level, yes. At the level of letting convicted criminals run for the highest office, no, that would be stupid. > it should be easy to make that case to the electorate It turns out if you have enough money for endless propaganda it is easy to make any case to the electorate. And who will be making the case anyway? The state cannot because it has to be inpartial in the elections; their opponents have a clear agenda (they want to be the president) so it's easy to dismiss their case. So that leaves no one with standing. > If it's not that easy, then banning her from running is even worse. If the result is that a convicted criminal will not be elected into the highest office of the state, that's not a worse outcome, that's a perfect outcome.

overfeed 2y ago
Allowing some people to be above the law is a bad idea in general. Selecting elected officials to be above the law in particularly is ill-thought-out, IMO. Perverse incentives abound . Elections shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail card.

surgical_fire 2y ago

Only when the rules are followed. For democracy to work properly politicians need to follow the rules.

glandium 2y ago
The problem is when rules don't apply the same to all politicians.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  That's a claim. You should back it up. In the case of EU are there other politicians who embezzled funds that were let off the hook?
  - glandium 2y ago
    Here's one: Jacques Chirac was condemned in 2011 to 2 years with suspension (so, less than Le Pen) for something very similar (party members paid for fictitious jobs at the Mairie de Paris when he was mayor), and no ineligibility (so again, different consequences).
    - matthewdgreen 2y ago
      So it sounds like other politicians have indeed been convicted of similar things. The difference in punishment would then require you to examine the difference in the severity of the actions, which is beyond my pay grade.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      Your example was of a politician being condemned. It seems that the system does work as intended after all. As for the length of punishment, we would have to look in detail what each did. Two murders may result is different length of imprisonment.
      - glandium 2y ago