@ente @webmind @strypey and yes, burnout is a huge problem. But poretty much unsolvable unless "our side" starts having enough resources to manage such campaigns not as emergencies...

If only we had popular organizations with big budgets that let people make it their job to participate in the political process and fight for us.
@ente @webmind @strypey

@webmind @pesco @rysiek @ente@chaos.social @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.

I actually think there should be a "deterministic 'NO' party" whose program is literally to vote against *any* change to the status quo. A default to choose if every other party seems terrible, a force to to make the others have to be not terrible.
@webmind @rysiek @ente @strypey

@pesco @Wolf480pl @webmind @ente @strypey you're describing the conservative parties. That's where the name comes from.

And they're usually the worst. Blocking marriage equality, gender equality regulations, environmental regulations, etc etc.

Even in #saveyourinternet it's aout *preserving old business models* in the age of Internets. So conservatives are often the ones who are voting for #Art11 #Art13, by and large.

@rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente@chaos.social @strypey

This is not what he's describing.

It's not about preserving the overall status quo, it's about paralyzing the parliment.
Therefore, the proposed party must vote "NO" in all circumstances.

@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.

@rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente@chaos.social @strypey

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.

@Wolf480pl @pesco @webmind @ente @strypey bullshit.

Society supports parties that got elected. PiS has 35-40% in polls in Poland, all the time.

Not sure which reality you live in.


@rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente@chaos.social @strypey

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?

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Welcome to your niu world ! We are a cute and loving international community O(≧▽≦)O !