Timeline for TINA problem in democracies: has it been studied?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17 at 6:43 | comment | added | haxor789 | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Apr 17 at 0:53 | comment | added | uberhaxed | You seem to keep trying to skirt around the issue that the point is majority rule. The other alternative is minority rule (with n sometimes close to 1) or rule by consensus, which will never work because then nothing will get done. | |
| Apr 17 at 0:06 | comment | added | haxor789 | @uberhaxed But voting isn't democracy it's one way to implement a rudimentary version of democracy. The point is that democracy is the cooperative effort of self-governance by a group. People don't need to agree on everything and likely don't but they should work together to figure out how to progress and having opinion polls and figuring out what the majority is in favor of is a useful tool for that. While pure majority rule could also be fine with just throwing marginalized minorities under the bus. Which would then be a 2 class system rather than a democracy. | |
| Apr 16 at 18:00 | comment | added | uberhaxed | The point of voting in the first place is the implicit belief that the decision of the majority of the decision of the group. No matter what sophistry you use, you have to accept that a democracy consents to submit to majority opinion. | |
| Apr 16 at 17:56 | comment | added | haxor789 | @uberhaxed The quintessential idea of democracy and what it literally means is "rule of the people". So rather than one dedicated ruler or one ruling class, caste or whatnot you'd have self-governance "by the people". Ideally directly; replacing any sort of government with a plenum discussion forum where anyone has the same rights and abilities to participate. So that is more than majority rule, which to the minority can look very anti-democratic, though compared to other forms of government with a tyranny of the ruling minority, majority rule is often a step towards democracy. | |
| Apr 16 at 14:45 | comment | added | uberhaxed | IMO, getting a majority is exactly how democracy is supposed to work. If you can't convince a majority to vote for your ideas then it's not good idea. The concept of coalitions in parliamentary systems is an afront to actual democracy and seems to be trying to use technicalities in the rules to pass minority opinions instead of the spirit of democracy (majority rules). That being said, third parties do exist (they are unpopular). The idea of big tent parties are to unite people under a common banner instead of fracturing the population politically, causing political discord. | |
| Apr 16 at 8:59 | comment | added | haxor789 | @uberhaxed It very well might be but it suffers from the same problem in two ways, one is the direct election of the members of congress. Which is both an advantage as they are local to their district, rather than just a member of a party, but which also means it's a single position to be filled. The other is that they aim for the majority in these chambers so again disincentivizing 3rd party candidates unless they strongly affiliate with one of the existing parties. | |
| Apr 12 at 18:42 | comment | added | uberhaxed | What makes you think the legislative branch in the US is not more powerful than the other branches? After all it has the ability to remove all of the members of the other branches via impeachment (which is a political process, so it doesn't require a reason). | |
| Apr 12 at 11:03 | history | answered | haxor789 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |