@webmind @pesco @rysiek @firstname.lastname@example.org @strypey
I bet many people wouldn't mind a government that does completely nothing.
A feature freeze of sorts.
No new law.
Everything keeps working as it was before.
Yeah, I know it wouldn't work long-term. But so often it seems that every time someone proposes a change to the law, someone takes it as an opportunity to inject their shitty article into it.
@Wolf480pl @pesco @webmind @ente @strypey yes, but *by definition* this preserves old regulation. Like marriage inequality, like freedom to polute. There is literally no good reason to have a party like that. This will no achieve anything.
What we need are parties that vote sane. Not obstructionists.
Each mobile phone manufacturer would still create their own precious charger plug. Remember that fun?
We would not have Roam like at Home, which means I can use my Polish SIM card in the rest of EU without paying an arm and a leg.
It will change the game.
The basic idea behind democracy is that to rule, a party needs support of the society.
Currently there's an anomaly that if the society doesn't support any party, then some party still gets to rule, even though the society doesn't support it.
What I propose is that if the society doesn't support any party, then NOBODY gets to rule.
This will change the incentives for parties, because they'll have to be better than nothing.
35-40% is still less than 50%.
Also, some people vote for "better of two evils".
Also, maybe some people who don't vote would vote for "NO" instead.
Also, an old and well-known evil is better than new evil, because people know what to expect and have workarounds for some issues.
Manufacturer-specific phone chargers weren't that bad, from my POV.
@Wolf480pl @pesco @ente I think @rysiek 's point is that if a NO party could get more votes than the currently governing parties, the same people could probably organize themselves to do something more constructive, like bring in a new electoral system, or an entirely new form of democracy not dependent on elections
@Wolf480pl @pesco @ente @rysiek
I do like the symbolism of empty seats, representing the non-vote. I even had some ideas about organizing a No Confidence party that would legally bind itself not to attend or vote in parliament.But the problem in practice is it concentrates the power of elected representatives in an smaller and even less representative number of hands. What if your 5 votes (or whatever) were the difference between something awesome happening (eg ending drug prohibition) or not?
@Wolf480pl @pesco @webmind @ente @strypey what will change the incentives is changing the electoral system to Single Transferrable Vote:
Instead of coming up with hare-brained schemes involving obstructionism and blockchain, perhaps we should first do some research into actually viable solutions?..
I wasn't serious with the blockchain part. Sorry if that made you angry.
I know about STV, but it's pretty complicated, It'd be a big change to the electorial system, and would the whole thing harder to understand. OTOH, a "NO" party is simple, and doesn't require changes in the electorial system.
I'm not saying it'd solve all problems, or most of the problems. I'm just saying it's an idea worth investigating.
I've voted in STV elections for local govt back home, it really isn't that complicated. People who can't be bothered thinking it through still have the option of treating it like a FPP election, and just putting (1) next to their preferred candidate instead of a tick. You could even have a rule that a tick counts as a (1) for that candidate in case people get confused.
@strypey @rysiek @pesco @webmind @email@example.com
It's harder to implement a new system than to slightly adjust an existing system, especially that the "NO" party could be implemented without any change to the existing implementation of voting system.
By "hard to reason about" I mean, it is harder to predict how your votes will affect the results, harder to externally verify if the system functions correctly, and harder to predict how it'll behave as a part of a larger system.
@Wolf480pl @rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente I was involved in the attempts to bootstrap a #PirateParty here, and I know some of the people who campaigned successfully to change #NZ from FPP to MMP. I also know co-founders of new political parties, some successful (eg Greens), many not (eg Cannabis, Pirates), some mixed (eg Alliance, Mana). I think you underestimate how hard it is to set up a new political party from scratch, *especially* in a FPP electoral system.
@Wolf480pl @rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente as for "hard to reason about", all of your arguments apply to MMP. It's still been a much better system for my home country than FPP. We had a recent referendum about whether to keep MMP, in which the corprate lobby fought tooth and nail to go back to FPP, and lost. Which illustrates both why its better, and how much more invested people are in politics in proportional representation systems.
@webmind sorry, will untag you from all further posts about voting. I'm curious, what does political involvement and decision-making look like to you without any kind of voting system?
@strypey voting is one thing, but I would hardly call it involvement. Pressing like/dislike is hardly anything. Outside how people skew numbers.
I'm interested in discussion. Politicians for instance talking to people. Actually getting content from people, not just numbers.
@webmind Sure, but everyone talks to people. How do you channel that into productive decision-making? In my experience this doesn't just happen, and when it doesn't, bad things can happen
Well given a representative democracy, decision making can be done by those in power. but those parties are usually way to much removed from people.
Decision making structures are one thing. Developing a basis on what one can make decisions another. The latter I find more interesting.
@webmind can you expand on that?
@strypey dunno, it's a wide topic. But for instance how to get politicians more connected to diverse crowds of people, but also how to educate people on topics on the 'political agenda'
@notclacke @Wolf480pl @ente @pesco @rysiek
(note I have untagged at-webmind as requested, please do the same on all further discussion about #voting)
opinion polls just assume, as they do in #FPP, that the candidate will get the same proportion of votes as there are people in the poll saying they want them to win. #STV make even more sense for #elections where more than one person can win, like seats on a council or committee.
@Wolf480pl @rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente the *huge* advantage though, is that I can vote for the green candidates, which still giving my vote to the safer social democrat candidates if the green candidates don't get it. If I was a right-libertarian, I could do the same but giving highest preference to any right-lib candidates, to make sure I wasn't splitting the vote and helping the socially conservative candidates get in.
@Wolf480pl @rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente people think low voter turnout is caused by voting being "complicated". I think that's patronizing bullshit. It's because whoever you vote for, one of the corporatist white guys wins (and or maybe corporatist white or brown women but ...), so people think why bother? STV fixes this and makes voting much more worthwhile for people who feel represented by neither the "left" nor "right" of the centre-right corporatists
@bob @ente @webmind @pesco @rysiek @Wolf480pl then you put more energy into local elections, like community boards and councils, where the candidates represent much smaller numbers of people ;) Or you work on trying to get whole countries to use something like #LiquidFeedback for making country-scale decisions, but I talked to an ex-MP about that once, and he made some good arguments about why it would be hard to make that work well. It's an intriguing topic, and one I'm always up for!
I absolutely agree that the NO party would not make good policy, I sure wouldn't vote for them, and I believe in order for them to be constitutional they couldn't even traditionally advertise that you should.
I take your point that there would be large overlap with conservative parties by definition. But would it be worse than a conservative party? At least it would be cheaper and less susceptible to corruption. :)
Anyway as @Wolf480pl says, there are people, as a matter of fact, who hate all parties and feel betrayed by a menu of terrible choices. It's a large part of the current populist surge. So a literal NO choice would be seen as a corrective term to steer the system back to a reasonable menu "before it comes to Trump".
Hope that makes it clear that I don't actually *want* obstruction. ;)
We are a cute and loving international community Ｏ(≧▽≦)Ｏ !