Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Gustaran]

I think we had a similar discussion a few years ago?

In case you haven't heard about him, I would like to point to the excellent and entertaining video series about voting systems by CPG Grey:

"Politics in the Animal Kingdom":
http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/

[TheHumanHydra]

This paper also explains a number of options if anyone would prefer to read: https://lop.parl.ca/Content/LOP/Research...government

[Mardoc]

I don't get this tyranny of the majority thing. It's much worse when the people who are fewer get "violate the rights" of the majority. Any elected body could violate the rights of its non-electors, it's not only a product of popular vote systems.

Fundamentally, I think the issue is that government is too powerful and does too much. I think that the question of which party, which majority, is in charge, is a red herring that distracts from the important question, which is how to limit the government. That is, I agree that you can have either tyranny of the minority or tyranny of the majority, but I think it's more important to fight tyranny than to worry about majority. At least at the margin where we are currently - maybe I'd feel differently if I was in an aristocracy.

I still think your analysis of the US is wrong, and that it is not possible for a minority of voters to control the whole thing. The piece I think you're missing is the option for no one to be in control. 2012, when the House nominally was in Republican control, in reality the combination of Republican disunity and a Democratic president meant that nothing got done that couldn't get bipartisan support, like continuing most funding at the previous level.

while the house, as a legislative body, is very important, the house elections have not mattered since the beginning of the 5th republic

That feels deeply weird and wrong to me. What's the point in having the house if it's just a rubber stamp? I suppose it could be just a coincidence, that the house could be a check on the president, but recent presidents haven't done anything that needed checking so that power hasn't been exercised.

I think this is the backwards way of looking at it. The goal instead should be to get past 48% or 51% to higher levels of consensus.

...

The argument over what degree of power the slim majority should have is kind of a false choice. The argument should be over how we can increase the majority so that when that power is exercised, it feels much more fair to more people.

I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing. You seem to be coming from an angle of 'first, set policy, then convince lots of people to approve'? And that it would be good if more people supported the government, if they were patriots of the 'my country, right or wrong' vein, because then we wouldn't have slim majorities. Except that doesn't fit with what I've seen you argue in the past.

My position is something like: the government shouldn't do anything it can't get a majority for, ideally a super-majority. If people can't agree what should be done, then the appropriate thing is to do nothing until we have reached something closer to consensus. Or perhaps more specifically - we shouldn't *change* any substantial policy without a super-majority. Is that different than your view?

[AdrienIer]

while the house, as a legislative body, is very important, the house elections have not mattered since the beginning of the 5th republic

That feels deeply weird and wrong to me. What's the point in having the house if it's just a rubber stamp? I suppose it could be just a coincidence, that the house could be a check on the president, but recent presidents haven't done anything that needed checking so that power hasn't been exercised.

The president can't pass constitutional amendements without a super majority of congress which is very difficult for one party to get, so the president isn't unchecked. And the representatives themselves are not necessarily yes men for the president, it's just that they agree with the general direction he's taking.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

cmon son, the libertarian movement is dyin, all their energy is being sucked up by fash, turns out a fixation on property rights uber alles means you're okay with turning other people into property or fertilizer

[Mardoc]

cmon son, the libertarian movement is dyin, all their energy is being sucked up by fash, turns out a fixation on property rights uber alles means you're okay with turning other people into property or fertilizer

That's certainly what the fascists want us to believe. I don't feel like believing them.

[MJW (ya that one)]

There are rumors of league talking to M5S but things like this tend to fall apart. I will ignore it until something final is reached.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Chance of LOL @ around 50% @ PredictIt. He has a 60% chance of winning if you look at the price but you lose some because you need to do better than break even to justify investing and there's a possibility of a minority / all-for-one government with M5S leader at the head.

[darrelljs]

Best one yet IMO .

Darrell

[AdrienIer]

The stable genius has spoken