6 ms·

One of the failings of most modern democracies is that if a measure doesn't pass, nothing prohibits it from being introduced again immediately. I've seen ballot

One of the failings of most modern democracies is that if a measure doesn't pass, nothing prohibits it from being introduced again immediately. I've seen ballot initiatives simply get copy pasted onto each election by city council until they happen to pass.

soulofmischief 1y ago
A well-funded institution will always outlast an individual or smaller organization in a war of attrition. I think a modern Constitution needs to consider 19-20th-century concepts such as game theory if it has any hope of preventing eventual corruption.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  The same game theory that could make a modern constitution so robust could also be used by the bad guys to thoroughly corrupt the drafting of any modern constitution you could get enacted.
  - rolandog 1y ago
    I'm of the opinion that our failure (as a society) to prevent this type of attrition of democracy — death by a thousand papercuts — will be lead to catastrophic tipping points. As a ChemEng, I can't help but compare the current coordinated attack on the democratic rule of governments worldwide to having multiple batches of emulsions undergoing phase-inversion [0]: only so much fascism can be added before things collapse into a greasy turd. That democracy is not robust does not mean it is not good nor something worth aspiring to. I would argue that the root cause of the sad state of democracies is the fact that we were coaxed into a snafu by virtue of accepting the false equivalence of capitalism and democracy: the first does not warrant the other; in fact they are most times at odds. I am also reminded of the Behind the Bastards podcast and their episodes on Adolf Eichmann's careerist pursuit enabling the Holocaust... leading me to wonder how many people are burning the world down as part of a KPI... Or, in other words, are our economic systems and forms of government vulnerable to the paperclip problem? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_inversion_(chemistry)#In_emulsions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_inversion_(chemistry)#In...
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
      >I'm of the opinion that our failure (as a society) to prevent this type of attrition of democracy I'm not a fan of democracy. You wouldn't be either, if you thought about it for very long... you just can't help yourself, it was championed as some sort of virtue ever since you were old enough to realize that governments existed. From kindergarten or pre-k. The things you'd claim you like about democracy aren't even things that make it a democracy. The one (and only) criterion of democracy is "can you vote". And there are better ways to get all the other things than voting... voting/people do not scale. It is the undoing of democracy, people get what they deserve from it. Good and hard. >That democracy is not robust does not mean it is not good nor something worth aspiring to. It does not scale. You're aspiring to something that not only does not and cannot work, but you're trying to make it even bigger, true "the beatings will continue until morale improves" style. If I can figure out how to strike out on my own and be a million miles away from you when you rally for your most ambitious attempt yet, that's what I will do.
      - Kim_Bruning 1y ago
        Defining something in the negative is always tricky. What are some better designs, or design principles?
        NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
        Sortition. If no one can vote, then there can't be any of the chicanery that comes from that. Political parties couldn't exist, because a party can't help someone get elected. We no longer have the problem of the only people in office being those who wanted to be in office enough to go to the trouble. No need for term limits (people are unlikely to win office twice, let alone more often). And yet it preserves everything you like about democracy.
        Kim_Bruning 1y ago
        I get the impression myself that no singular approach is perfect. They've all been tried and all have flaws. That and different functions of government might actually benefit from different methods. This is why most practical real world systems tend to be a hybrid of several different designs. Eg... the US constitution gives us Direct elections (congress) , indirect elections (president via electors, though that has been somewhat undermined), Sortition (juries), lifetime appointment (judges), appointment based on merit (civil service), and probably a few more that I've missed. One can even argue -if one would like to try- that separation of powers counts as anarchistic (certainly it is anti-archon).
- deaddodo 1y ago
  Look at SOPA/PIPA. They simultaneously pushed the same bill through both chambers to try and guarantee it would pass. Grassroots efforts led to it being overwhelmingly blocked in both cases. And then they just slowly slipped most of it's provisions through other legislation over the years.
  - lern_too_spel 1y ago
    Except for a few types of bills that customarily originate in the house, most bills are introduced roughly simultaneously in both houses so that the information for debating the bill doesn't have to be brought twice. This obviously doesn't guarantee a bill will pass because it is required to pass both houses.
    - deaddodo 1y ago
      Every bill has to go through both chambers, but they usually originate in one and then are passed to the other once the originating chamber affirms them. It is not common to push two independent bills simultaneously, despite your assertion so.
      - lern_too_spel 1y ago
        > It is not common to push two independent bills simultaneously, despite your assertion so. This is in fact extremely common. Both houses pass independent bills, and then they go to conference to work out the differences. https://gai.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Tab-6-Resolving-House-Senate-Differences.pdf https://gai.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Tab-6-... "Frequently, however, House and Senate committees each develop their own bills on the same subject. In these cases, one house often debates and amends the bill reported by its committee but then amends and passes the corresponding bill that the other chamber has already passed"
        deaddodo 1y ago
        You’re picking and choosing, and being obscenely obtuse because you want to win a nothing internet argument. They dual draft bills. A draft is not the same thing as a proposal. When it actually runs through the process, one of the two drafts runs its course (as a proposal) in the origination chamber. That same bill is then passed to the second chamber to get approved. If it happened “all the time”, you would link examples rather than barely related Georgetown University theory pieces. Do I need to link you the “School House Rock” video? Or are you going to continue to link out of context/slightly tangential articles to try and prove your point in a typical armchair expert manner? If so, just move on and pretend you “won”; it’s more productive.
Kim_Bruning 1y ago
That's what constitutional amendments are for, right? (or in this case ECHR updates)
- sidewndr46 1y ago
  Not really. There have been multiple times that California passed ballot initiatives that violated their own constitution. At the federal level in the US we have the annoying problem that effectively everything is interstate commerce.
deaddodo 1y ago
Meanwhile, they make the dismantling of legislation near impossible. You have to go through the same process, but in inverse; and hope that miraculously the representatives in gov't become altruistic with a desire for less power.
ryandrake 1y ago
The deck is stacked. They only have to win once, and it's law. You have to win over and over every time it's introduced.
- sneak 1y ago
  Heinlein in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress proposed a bicameral legislature, where one half needs a 66% majority to pass a law. The other half’s only job is to repeal laws, which they can do with a 50% majority.
  - Analemma_ 1y ago
    This is a dumb and outrageously anti-democratic idea, and is a much worse cure than the disease it's attempting to fix. If 65% of the population supports a law it's favored by 30 points-- far higher than the margin of most elections-- and yet would not exist under this system.
    - ryandrake 1y ago
      There's nothing magical about 50%. The bar for "this policy should be inflicted on everyone" should be very high--I'd argue much higher than 50%. At the same time, the bar for "we should stop inflicting this policy on everyone" should be extremely low. I'd argue a 1/3 minority should be enough to repeal a law. If one out of three people feel they are harmed by something, maybe the government shouldn't be doing it.
      - Arainach 1y ago
        This doesn't work in practice. Look at how Senate Republicans have weaponized the filibuster in the last 20 years. A 40% veto is conceptually similar to your repeal process and it results in gridlock and nothing getting done. It is harder to build than to destroy. If laws can be trivially repealed no one will be willing to commit to long term things. We're seeing that right now with the destruction of US soft power, economic power, and global leadership.
noqc 1y ago
This system would make a lot more sense if the number of people you had to get to agree to a bill with a bunch of riders was more than 50%.
mc32 1y ago
It'd be nice if bills were one item only and on failure or passage, there would be a timeout before it could be brought to vote again either to try to pass it again or to repeal it. Like at least a year. For some things maybe five years.

soulofmischief 1y ago

A well-funded institution will always outlast an individual or smaller organization in a war of attrition. I think a modern Constitution needs to consider 19-20th-century concepts such as game theory if it has any hope of preventing eventual corruption.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
The same game theory that could make a modern constitution so robust could also be used by the bad guys to thoroughly corrupt the drafting of any modern constitution you could get enacted.
- rolandog 1y ago
  I'm of the opinion that our failure (as a society) to prevent this type of attrition of democracy — death by a thousand papercuts — will be lead to catastrophic tipping points. As a ChemEng, I can't help but compare the current coordinated attack on the democratic rule of governments worldwide to having multiple batches of emulsions undergoing phase-inversion [0]: only so much fascism can be added before things collapse into a greasy turd. That democracy is not robust does not mean it is not good nor something worth aspiring to. I would argue that the root cause of the sad state of democracies is the fact that we were coaxed into a snafu by virtue of accepting the false equivalence of capitalism and democracy: the first does not warrant the other; in fact they are most times at odds. I am also reminded of the Behind the Bastards podcast and their episodes on Adolf Eichmann's careerist pursuit enabling the Holocaust... leading me to wonder how many people are burning the world down as part of a KPI... Or, in other words, are our economic systems and forms of government vulnerable to the paperclip problem? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_inversion_(chemistry)#In_emulsions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_inversion_(chemistry)#In...
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    >I'm of the opinion that our failure (as a society) to prevent this type of attrition of democracy I'm not a fan of democracy. You wouldn't be either, if you thought about it for very long... you just can't help yourself, it was championed as some sort of virtue ever since you were old enough to realize that governments existed. From kindergarten or pre-k. The things you'd claim you like about democracy aren't even things that make it a democracy. The one (and only) criterion of democracy is "can you vote". And there are better ways to get all the other things than voting... voting/people do not scale. It is the undoing of democracy, people get what they deserve from it. Good and hard. >That democracy is not robust does not mean it is not good nor something worth aspiring to. It does not scale. You're aspiring to something that not only does not and cannot work, but you're trying to make it even bigger, true "the beatings will continue until morale improves" style. If I can figure out how to strike out on my own and be a million miles away from you when you rally for your most ambitious attempt yet, that's what I will do.
    - Kim_Bruning 1y ago
      Defining something in the negative is always tricky. What are some better designs, or design principles?
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
        Sortition. If no one can vote, then there can't be any of the chicanery that comes from that. Political parties couldn't exist, because a party can't help someone get elected. We no longer have the problem of the only people in office being those who wanted to be in office enough to go to the trouble. No need for term limits (people are unlikely to win office twice, let alone more often). And yet it preserves everything you like about democracy.
        Kim_Bruning 1y ago
        I get the impression myself that no singular approach is perfect. They've all been tried and all have flaws. That and different functions of government might actually benefit from different methods. This is why most practical real world systems tend to be a hybrid of several different designs. Eg... the US constitution gives us Direct elections (congress) , indirect elections (president via electors, though that has been somewhat undermined), Sortition (juries), lifetime appointment (judges), appointment based on merit (civil service), and probably a few more that I've missed. One can even argue -if one would like to try- that separation of powers counts as anarchistic (certainly it is anti-archon).
deaddodo 1y ago
Look at SOPA/PIPA. They simultaneously pushed the same bill through both chambers to try and guarantee it would pass. Grassroots efforts led to it being overwhelmingly blocked in both cases. And then they just slowly slipped most of it's provisions through other legislation over the years.
- lern_too_spel 1y ago
  Except for a few types of bills that customarily originate in the house, most bills are introduced roughly simultaneously in both houses so that the information for debating the bill doesn't have to be brought twice. This obviously doesn't guarantee a bill will pass because it is required to pass both houses.
  - deaddodo 1y ago
    Every bill has to go through both chambers, but they usually originate in one and then are passed to the other once the originating chamber affirms them. It is not common to push two independent bills simultaneously, despite your assertion so.
    - lern_too_spel 1y ago
      > It is not common to push two independent bills simultaneously, despite your assertion so. This is in fact extremely common. Both houses pass independent bills, and then they go to conference to work out the differences. https://gai.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Tab-6-Resolving-House-Senate-Differences.pdf https://gai.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Tab-6-... "Frequently, however, House and Senate committees each develop their own bills on the same subject. In these cases, one house often debates and amends the bill reported by its committee but then amends and passes the corresponding bill that the other chamber has already passed"
      - deaddodo 1y ago
        You’re picking and choosing, and being obscenely obtuse because you want to win a nothing internet argument. They dual draft bills. A draft is not the same thing as a proposal. When it actually runs through the process, one of the two drafts runs its course (as a proposal) in the origination chamber. That same bill is then passed to the second chamber to get approved. If it happened “all the time”, you would link examples rather than barely related Georgetown University theory pieces. Do I need to link you the “School House Rock” video? Or are you going to continue to link out of context/slightly tangential articles to try and prove your point in a typical armchair expert manner? If so, just move on and pretend you “won”; it’s more productive.

Kim_Bruning 1y ago

That's what constitutional amendments are for, right? (or in this case ECHR updates)

sidewndr46 1y ago
Not really. There have been multiple times that California passed ballot initiatives that violated their own constitution. At the federal level in the US we have the annoying problem that effectively everything is interstate commerce.

deaddodo 1y ago

Meanwhile, they make the dismantling of legislation near impossible. You have to go through the same process, but in inverse; and hope that miraculously the representatives in gov't become altruistic with a desire for less power.

ryandrake 1y ago

The deck is stacked. They only have to win once, and it's law. You have to win over and over every time it's introduced.

sneak 1y ago
Heinlein in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress proposed a bicameral legislature, where one half needs a 66% majority to pass a law. The other half’s only job is to repeal laws, which they can do with a 50% majority.
- Analemma_ 1y ago
  This is a dumb and outrageously anti-democratic idea, and is a much worse cure than the disease it's attempting to fix. If 65% of the population supports a law it's favored by 30 points-- far higher than the margin of most elections-- and yet would not exist under this system.
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    There's nothing magical about 50%. The bar for "this policy should be inflicted on everyone" should be very high--I'd argue much higher than 50%. At the same time, the bar for "we should stop inflicting this policy on everyone" should be extremely low. I'd argue a 1/3 minority should be enough to repeal a law. If one out of three people feel they are harmed by something, maybe the government shouldn't be doing it.
    - Arainach 1y ago
      This doesn't work in practice. Look at how Senate Republicans have weaponized the filibuster in the last 20 years. A 40% veto is conceptually similar to your repeal process and it results in gridlock and nothing getting done. It is harder to build than to destroy. If laws can be trivially repealed no one will be willing to commit to long term things. We're seeing that right now with the destruction of US soft power, economic power, and global leadership.

noqc 1y ago

This system would make a lot more sense if the number of people you had to get to agree to a bill with a bunch of riders was more than 50%.

mc32 1y ago

It'd be nice if bills were one item only and on failure or passage, there would be a timeout before it could be brought to vote again either to try to pass it again or to repeal it. Like at least a year. For some things maybe five years.