Yet Another School Shooting in the United States

[K. A. Pital]

An idea should be evaluated by whatever means the any particular citizen wants. NOT what you insist it must be. That's the whole point of rule through consent. You know, like in a democracy...

Ideas should be evaluated on their merits. Whether they get citizen support is another matter. You fail to understand that popular support for something (like, say, teaching creationism in schools or prohibiting the federal funding of embryonal stem cell research) does not automatically make it a good idea. It just means it is a bad popular idea.

[Simon_Jester]

This issue can be resolved with some major reforms. The first of which should be to adopt the Australian system which includes compulsory voting, with full-preferential instant-runoff voting in single-member seats to elect the lower house, the House of Representatives, and the use of group-ticket, single-transferable proportional voting to elect the upper house, the Senate. Combine that with reviewing the way districts are drawn up, removing the electoral college, and allowing overseas citizens to vote. That way any majority would be a legitimate majority without the issues you've presented.

Won't work. Or rather, it would work in itself- all these reforms are good ideas- but none of them actually address the problem.

Because the problem breaks down into two parts. One part is that temporary decisions can have permanent consequences. The other is that power-hungry politicians are good at using temporary situations to garner support for such decisions. Neither of those problems goes away when you reform the electoral system. Other problems may go away, but not this one- you will still see political factions trying to use a temporary crisis, or a one-time circumstance that alters the outcome of one election, to gain a permanent advantage over the opposition.

All you accomplish is to change the rules by which the politicians play the game- you don't end the game itself.

Is this a habit of yours, constantly treating your pet hobbyhorse as if it were a panacea solution to problems it was never realistically intended to solve? First gun control, now election reform...

Now before you say this is impossible look at the nation already doing this and take note of how much more democratic their system is.

It's not that the Australian system is bad, it's that it doesn't actually solve the fundamental problem- which is that there are several reasons NOT to make changing the constitution as easy as, oh, changing prime ministers.

It should be quite easy to change policies.

It should be harder to change the prime minister- because 'churn' is undesirable; you want some degree of stability in positions of executive power. Otherwise, either the government ceases to function, or power devolves downward to the unelected (and more stable) parts of the government while the elected politicians zip in and out through a revolving door without having time to learn their jobs.

It should be harder still to change the basic structure of the government itself. Or to change definitions of what rights the people have, especially when we're talking about removing rights rather than adding them. Because the consequences of getting a decision on such issues wrong can include things like "democracy dies."

Changing the constitution of a nation is like performing surgery on the body. There are likely to be unforeseen consequences, complications, and costs. It's entirely proper to be somewhat conservative about reforming a constitution, just as most doctors are conservative about recommending surgery.

50% + 1 of the population votes to execute people with detached earlobes and enslave anyone who objects.

Jubian democracy in action, folks.

Yes, because that is a thing that could ever garner 50% + 1 of a popular vote in a system where 95%+ of people voted. If such a vote would pass by even that margin the nation that voted for it is fucked anyway.

The example is deliberately extreme- but less extreme examples could be chosen. A nation that believes itself to be threatened or insulted can authorize truly horrendous things, even when the decisions are being made by direct democracy.

So no, more democracy is not an antidote against the consequences of making it too easy for the state to make choices with permanent consequences. It is an antidote against many other things, but not that one.

[Jub]

[T]he problem breaks down into two parts. One part is that temporary decisions can have permanent consequences. The other is that power-hungry politicians are good at using temporary situations to garner support for such decisions. Neither of those problems goes away when you reform the electoral system. Other problems may go away, but not this one- you will still see political factions trying to use a temporary crisis, or a one-time circumstance that alters the outcome of one election, to gain a permanent advantage over the opposition.

All you accomplish is to change the rules by which the politicians play the game- you don't end the game itself.

So you're saying you don't trust a democracy to run correctly because the voters are fundamentally incapable of properly evaluating the situations they're voting on in the face of a charismatic leader? If that's the case shouldn't you be for some form of competency testing to ensure that people voting have sufficient knowledge of the issues they are voting on before being allowed to vote?

It's not that the Australian system is bad, it's that it doesn't actually solve the fundamental problem- which is that there are several reasons NOT to make changing the constitution as easy as, oh, changing prime ministers.

This again comes down to you seemingly having a fundamental distrust for a democratic system. You can't trust people not to vote against their own long-term interests. You blast me for ignoring the will of the people, but you yourself wouldn't care to see the will of the people honoured in full. Seeing as this is the case what system of government do favour? I ask because you don't seem to be in favour of a true democracy.

It should be quite easy to change policies.

It is, yet unless a referendum is called the citizens have precious little control over this process. If the people you elect don't do as you wish you have few easy options to remedy things between elections. Is this honestly what you're in favour of?

It should be harder to change the prime minister- because 'churn' is undesirable; you want some degree of stability in positions of executive power. Otherwise, either the government ceases to function, or power devolves downward to the unelected (and more stable) parts of the government while the elected politicians zip in and out through a revolving door without having time to learn their jobs.

Is there anything wrong with using the possibility of a swift exit to get rid of officials that break election promises and generally don't serve the wills of the people who voted for them? Why should people be locked into a full term of a minority government rather than forcing the election to be rerun until some form of consensus can be reached? When Bush was polling poorly in the middle of his second term should it not have been possible for a citizen's petition to start a referendum that could lead to an election before the end of the normal term?

It should be harder still to change the basic structure of the government itself. Or to change definitions of what rights the people have, especially when we're talking about removing rights rather than adding them. Because the consequences of getting a decision on such issues wrong can include things like "democracy dies."

Changing the constitution of a nation is like performing surgery on the body. There are likely to be unforeseen consequences, complications, and costs. It's entirely proper to be somewhat conservative about reforming a constitution, just as most doctors are conservative about recommending surgery.

You say this as if it takes a broken constitution to erode rights held by the citizens of a nation. Consider what a supreme court with one or two more conservative members could have done to LGBT rights, the enacting of "anti-terrorism" laws after 9/11, and backroom trade deals hidden behind closed doors have already done in that regard. Could trimming the fat, devaluing lobbies, and hearing the fullest possible voice of the people really be so much worse, and if it is, don't the people deserve their fate?

The example is deliberately extreme- but less extreme examples could be chosen. A nation that believes itself to be threatened or insulted can authorize truly horrendous things, even when the decisions are being made by direct democracy.

So no, more democracy is not an antidote against the consequences of making it too easy for the state to make choices with permanent consequences. It is an antidote against many other things, but not that one.

So not only could you not find a more recent example, but you're implying that the voters of today are no better than people living thousands of years in the past. I could understand your stance on democracy if you weren't so quick to call other men tyrants. Yet based on what you have posted in this and other debates I'm inclined to believe that you don't properly consider the merits of any system that does not suit one Simon Jester.

[Simon_Jester]

So you're saying you don't trust a democracy to run correctly because the voters are fundamentally incapable of properly evaluating the situations they're voting on in the face of a charismatic leader? If that's the case shouldn't you be for some form of competency testing to ensure that people voting have sufficient knowledge of the issues they are voting on before being allowed to vote?

Again you're missing the point.

The point is that you cannot turn the entire voting population into calm, dignified, deliberative political scientists and philosophers... which is what it would take to be eliminate the problem in a situation like this.

Firstly, it is literally impossible to ensure everyone gets that kind of educational background.

Secondly, even people who know things like "this institution is a necessary part of the checks and balances that keep our government from going off the rails" or "protecting our civil liberties is important" or "minorities should not be oppressed" tend to forget such things when their pet private issues are at stake.

So there will always be times when, for purely temporary reasons, the electorate has a short-term desire or specific problem they want addressed... in a way that would cause long term harm to the republic. The same is true of the politicians, of course, which is why a strict majority of legislators supporting a constitutional change shouldn't be enough either.

This again comes down to you seemingly having a fundamental distrust for a democratic system. You can't trust people not to vote against their own long-term interests. You blast me for ignoring the will of the people, but you yourself wouldn't care to see the will of the people honoured in full. Seeing as this is the case what system of government do favour? I ask because you don't seem to be in favour of a true democracy.

I favor a constitutional republic.

Constitutional monarchy is better than absolute monarchy, because the power of the monarch is limited by a binding legal document.

Constitutional republics are, likewise, better than republics without a constitution. Because there are many many failure modes for a republic that does not have constitutional restraints on the authority of the government, on the authority of individual elected officials, or that does not adequately protect the rights of all its citizens against government and against private entities.

But constitutions should not be easy to change because this makes them useless. The entire purpose of a constitution is to provide a framework that governs what happens when there is a dispute- when a loyal opposition with wide support wants to not have the rules changed on them. Wants to make sure their rights can't be revoked with a single stroke of the pen. Wants to make sure no temporary madness of crowds results in a long term disaster.

So we include safety measures to prevent that, because we are not blind or stupid and do not pretend that democracies never make mistakes.

Sometimes this serves to delay a change I desire- but if history really is on my side, then I can afford to wait a few years. Not forever, but for a little while at least. The only person who should be afraid of constitutional restrictions on their actions, is the person who in some way wants to abuse power. Either by using their power more radically than their mandate allows, or by using it in ways their mandate forbids.

It should be quite easy to change policies.

It is, yet unless a referendum is called the citizens have precious little control over this process. If the people you elect don't do as you wish you have few easy options to remedy things between elections. Is this honestly what you're in favour of?

I favor a republic. The exact mechanism by which the citizens exert control over the politicians in a republic is an open question with lots of room for healthy debate. Recall of elected officials is a time-honored idea and I don't object to it in principle...

Although recall elections aren't a cure-all... witness the 2003 recall elections in California. Uncharitably, the electorate was unhappy over high electric bills- and on the strength of that they threw out the Democratic governor and elected Arnold Schwarzenegger to run their state.

Oops.

It should be harder to change the prime minister- because 'churn' is undesirable; you want some degree of stability in positions of executive power. Otherwise, either the government ceases to function, or power devolves downward to the unelected (and more stable) parts of the government while the elected politicians zip in and out through a revolving door without having time to learn their jobs.

Is there anything wrong with using the possibility of a swift exit to get rid of officials that break election promises and generally don't serve the wills of the people who voted for them? Why should people be locked into a full term of a minority government rather than forcing the election to be rerun until some form of consensus can be reached? When Bush was polling poorly in the middle of his second term should it not have been possible for a citizen's petition to start a referendum that could lead to an election before the end of the normal term?

It's not that this should be impossible, it's that it shouldn't be so trivially easy. Unmaking a government (in the parliamentary sense of the word 'government') should be more work than creating one through the routine processes

Honestly, parliamentary systems are better for this purpose because they don't require regularly scheduled changes of the top leadership... so it's easier to change leadership in response to a sudden emergency.

It should be harder still to change the basic structure of the government itself. Or to change definitions of what rights the people have, especially when we're talking about removing rights rather than adding them. Because the consequences of getting a decision on such issues wrong can include things like "democracy dies."

Changing the constitution of a nation is like performing surgery on the body. There are likely to be unforeseen consequences, complications, and costs. It's entirely proper to be somewhat conservative about reforming a constitution, just as most doctors are conservative about recommending surgery.

You say this as if it takes a broken constitution to erode rights held by the citizens of a nation.

It takes a broken constitution, or an ignored or violated constitution to do this. There are many ways a constitution may be broken, or may be ignored, or may be violated.

Reforming the election system isn't a bad idea, and it's a good idea for many reasons.

But it doesn't solve the problem you claimed it would solve. Because you claimed it would solve the problem of a constitution that is too easily changed may wind up broken -as in nonfunctional. It solves other problems but not that problem.

Consider what a supreme court with one or two more conservative members could have done to LGBT rights, the enacting of "anti-terrorism" laws after 9/11, and backroom trade deals hidden behind closed doors have already done in that regard. Could trimming the fat, devaluing lobbies, and hearing the fullest possible voice of the people really be so much worse, and if it is, don't the people deserve their fate?

If you actually listened to what I was saying, there are plenty of problems that election reform might solve. It's just that none of them remove or neutralize the need for making it require more than a 50%+1 majority of the electorate (or of the legislature) to change the constitution of the republic.

The example is deliberately extreme- but less extreme examples could be chosen. A nation that believes itself to be threatened or insulted can authorize truly horrendous things, even when the decisions are being made by direct democracy.

So no, more democracy is not an antidote against the consequences of making it too easy for the state to make choices with permanent consequences. It is an antidote against many other things, but not that one.

So not only could you not find a more recent example, but you're implying that the voters of today are no better than people living thousands of years in the past.

If I wanted a more recent but less extreme example I could easily pick one- say, the recall of Governor Davis and the election of Governor Schwarzenegger to take his place in California.

Believe it or not, there's a reason why political theorists refer back to classical history. It provides a straightforward, compact reference pool where events are easy to understand. And- this is important- where they are far enough in the past that nobody is going to be obstinate or foolish and let present political opinions clutter up their understanding of the situation, because nobody has any direct stake in the conflict between Athens and Mytilene in the fifth century BC anymore.

Thus, by referring to a case where the Athenian Assembly voted on "should we massacre all male citizens of Mytilene and sell their women and children into slavery, yes or no..."

I can provide you with a clearcut case where the policy decision is between 'right and wrong...' and the voters began by choosing 'wrong.' The next day someone was able to convince them (not without difficulty) to change their minds... but by then it was almost too late. Had the Athenians owned radios, it would have been too late.

And again, because this happened many years ago, we don't feel an urge to bicker about the details of what happened or who did what and why. There isn't anyone left alive who thinks Athens' right to dominate the Aegean sea somehow justified destroying Mytilene in response to their troublesome, excessive independence.

Whereas if we were talking about recent events, there would be an urge to argue politics instead of arguing political science.

If you want me to dig through RECENT history, to find an event where a modern democratic legislature or electorate committed a foolish act in response to a short-term crisis... I can. I will do so on one condition.

Are you prepared to promise that you won't bicker with me about the details? Because that is not the point here.

The point I'm trying to argue is that legislatures and electorates do in fact do things which, in the light of later events, prove to be a mistake. And that we really do need some way to insulate the core, vital functions of the state, and the rights of the citizenry, against those mistakes.

I could understand your stance on democracy if you weren't so quick to call other men tyrants. Yet based on what you have posted in this and other debates I'm inclined to believe that you don't properly consider the merits of any system that does not suit one Simon Jester.

My stance on democracy is simple.

1) There are three basic types of government: democracy (rule by the many), oligarchy (rule by the few), and monarchy (rule by the one). Of these three, democracy is best.

2) For modern civilized societies, direct democracy is impractical. This is because running a government is too complicated for everyone to spend a few hours a week thinking about it part-time. Therefore, a republic is desirable- since it is the most practical form of the best of the three basic types of government.

3) The weaknesses of a republic are:
3a) That republics can be converted into monarchies if a single charismatic person is able to overwhelm the electoral system (e.g. Augustus's Rome or Hitler's Germany). This weakness is shared with other kinds of democracy.
3b) That republics are easily converted into oligarchies if the representatives become too personally powerful outside the limits of their offices, or if someone else is able to 'buy' representatives. This weakness is much more serious in republics than in other kinds of democracy.
3c) That republics, more so than other kinds of democracy and far more so than oligarchies or monarchies, depend on the rule of law in order to function. A republic simply cannot function unless everyone involved obeys certain rules about how elections are run, unless the courts are consistent, and so on. A dictator can run things on an ad-hoc arbitrary basis- not well, but it can at least be done sort of. A republic can't do that- rule of law is necessary.

4) All these weaknesses are best addressed through constitutional limits.
4a) No one office within the republic should be powerful enough that the person who holds it can become a king. This requires checks and balances.
4b) No representative should be able to abuse their offices and powers to become an oligarch. This is where recall provisions, campaign reform, and so on come in handy...
4c) And this is important- because republics rely on the rule of law, constitutional rights and structures have to be consistent and stable. New rights can be added without causing chaos, but once added, taking them away causes a great deal of trouble and can lead to disaster depending on which right you take away. Governments with the power to change when elections are held, or deprive citizens of the vote, have to use that power very carefully. Arguably they shouldn't have the power to do that at all.