The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

romanv
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

Post by romanv » Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:15 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:02 am
romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:20 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:32 pm

I am arguing in good faith and I am adhering to the axioms of probability theory: P(A) ≥ P(A & B). Which can be deduced from predicate logic.
IF A ∧ B => ⊤ THEN A => ⊤ AND B => ⊤


A = People are allowed to vote
B = People are allowed to vote on X

So I have taken your QUALIFIED (A ∧ B) statement and turned it into a GENERAL (A) statement by replacing "rights" with a universal variable X.

Nobody has the power to X even if everyone voted for it.

And so here are some particular examples of what X COULD be:
* Voting to invest in solving global warming
* Voting to increase taxes towards better universal healthcare
* Voting to repeal military conscription
* Voting to repeal owning slaves
* Voting to recognise NEW rights
* Voting to repeal OLD rights (owning slaves)

Obviously this is absurd! And so I am asking you to explain the mechanism by which the system will allow voting, while at the same time it will discriminate what people are allowed to vote FOR.


You pre-suppose malice rather than ignorance. Rights are lost through ignorance all the time! By outsourcing responsibility to the state.


Yes. That mechanism is voting. Voting aggregates the will of the people. Please eliudicate on the word "properly".

How do you resolve policy conflicts amongst interest groups in a democracy?
How do you allow people to vote for all other things which ARE in their interest, while you prevent the from voting for a policy that is harmful to them?

Lets take a particular example. Suppose that we are in a "proper democracy" and the constitution of said country contains a 2nd amendment - right to own firearms. Suppose also that 75% of the population votes to repeal this right, while the other 25% exercise their NOTA right.

What would happen next in your system?
I did a bad job of answering your post, so let try again.

To keep perspective, all NOTA does is provide a reliable measure of public dissatisfaction at elections, and if public dissatisfaction reaches more than 50%, then the election is held again.

It is not MY system, but the system that is supposed to be in place.

Democracy is not mob rule; this proposal does not do away with any country's constitution, there are inherent limits to the power of the state in a democracy - it cannot impinge on anyone's individual sovereignty.

I think you are getting carried away here. I am not sure what you are objecting to.

Is the addition of a NOTA option a good thing or a bad thing?

If you think its bad, please tell me why.

Adding NOTA does not outsource anything to the state, it does precisely the opposite, it ensures that the state can never at outside the parameters set out by its citizens.
So such a system would still suffer from the problem where 68% of the population can vote away the rights of the other 32%?

As a concrete example: repealing the 2nd amendment.
Is it the case that is cannot be done now?

What would NOTA change to make things worse than they are now?

Can you not see that NOTA is an improvement on the current system. Democracy makes many of the rights in in the US constitution inviolate, no matter how many people vote for abolishing them.
Last edited by romanv on Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:17 am

romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:15 am
Democracy makes many of the rights in in the US constitution inviolate, matter how many people vote for abolishing them.
How? What is the mechanism by which the population has the general right to vote OR exercise their NOTA right, but the inability to vote on particulars like abolishing rights?

All that NOTA provides is a mechanism for effective boycott against change.

Which means that until there is 50% or more consensus on any issue of importance - we are going nowhere.

romanv
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

Post by romanv » Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:27 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:17 am
romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:15 am
Democracy makes many of the rights in in the US constitution inviolate, matter how many people vote for abolishing them.
How? What is the mechanism by which the population has the general right to vote, but the inability to vote on particulars like abolishing rights?
I have gone through the conceptual framework of democracy several times.

I will repeat it again. Democratically endowed power cannot infringe on your invidual sovereignty. The judiciary would define the limits I guess, just as they do now.

Don't get too carried away with the conceptual framework, it is used to show how fundamental this option is to adhering to the tenets of democracy, and without it you end up in an oligarchy that is out of the control of its citizens. I am not advocating for anything other than what you should have already.

Nothing is changing but the addition of a NOTA option. Is that not a good tool to have in your hands? Doesn't it give far more power than you had previously? And this s giving you more power over the government and reducing the amount of power the government can exert over you.

romanv
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

Post by romanv » Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:31 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:17 am
romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:15 am
Democracy makes many of the rights in in the US constitution inviolate, matter how many people vote for abolishing them.
How? What is the mechanism by which the population has the general right to vote OR exercise their NOTA right, but the inability to vote on particulars like abolishing rights?

All that NOTA provides is a mechanism for effective boycott against change.

Which means that until there is 50% or more consensus on any issue of importance - we are going nowhere.
Yes that is exactly what it does, it ensures a consensus of 50+%. If you think that is a bad idea, then well, ok. Then oboviously you think democracy is a bad idea. Good luck on finding rulers to be nice to you.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:34 am

romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:27 am
I have gone through the conceptual framework of democracy several times.

I will repeat it again. Democratically endowed power cannot infringe on your invidual sovereignty. The judiciary would define the limits I guess, just as they do now.
Weasel words!

Unless you describe the mechanism of how you would PREVENT it from happening it's just an empty promise.

This is HOW it would happen in practice.

The judiciary defines those limits based on the constitution which the judiciary serves.
The constitution can be amended by 66% majority vote.

romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:27 am
Don't get too carried away with the conceptual framework, it is used to show how fundamental this option is to adhering to the tenets of democracy, and without it you end up in an oligarchy that is out of the control of its citizens. I am not advocating for anything other than what you should have already.
On the contrary! I am focusing on the pragmatic aspects of it alone!

Yes. Like I said NOTA would be a mechanism for effective boycott to change.
This way 30% of the electorate who show up on voting day cannot decide on policy.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:36 am

romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:31 am
Yes that is exactly what it does, it ensures a consensus of 50+%. If you think that is a bad idea, then well, ok. Then oboviously you think democracy is a bad idea. Good luck on finding rulers to be nice to you.
It's neither a good idea nor a bad idea. Inaction can be just as harmful as action and so I require empirical evidence to make any moral judgments.

For example. If 51% of the population is too ignorant to understand the impact of global warming and don't show up on voting day to prevent signing the Kyoto protocol. I guess the other 49% are going to get very angry!

The world I exist in right now is better. Smart people who know how to play the game - know how to drive positive change despite the obstacles. This would make it much harder to game the system with good intentions.

romanv
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

Post by romanv » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:06 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:36 am
romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:31 am
Yes that is exactly what it does, it ensures a consensus of 50+%. If you think that is a bad idea, then well, ok. Then oboviously you think democracy is a bad idea. Good luck on finding rulers to be nice to you.
It's neither a good idea nor a bad idea. Inaction can be just as harmful as action and so I require empirical evidence to make any moral judgments.

For example. If 51% of the population is too ignorant to understand the impact of global warming and don't show up on voting day to prevent signing the Kyoto protocol. I guess the other 49% are going to get very angry!

The world I exist in right now is better. Smart people who know how to play the game - know how to drive positive change despite the obstacles. This would make it much harder to game the system with good intentions.
Yes it would make it much harder to game the system and ensure a majority consensus in who gets into the legislature. I am glad you do understand the point of the reform, even if you don't agree on its beneficial impact. Why you think smart people will be gaming the system on our behalf, when there is no incentive t do so, I can even begin to guess. But there are plenty of smart people gaming the system on their own behalf, or those of special interest groups who reward them handsomely to do so.

I've suspected that people who are hostile to NOTA are hostile to democracy. And this is proving itself to be true.

romanv
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

Post by romanv » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:46 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:34 am

Yes. Like I said NOTA would be a mechanism for effective boycott to change.
This way 30% of the electorate who show up on voting day cannot decide on policy.
Wat?

You don't get to choose NOTA by staying at home. If only 30% show up with a NOTA option present that means 70% have abstained and will go along with what the majority of the 30% vote for. The NOTA option is too ensure that no-one is disenfranchised.

You make this incredibly hard work. Maybe you are just trolling.
Weasel words!

Unless you describe the mechanism of how you would PREVENT it from happening it's just an empty promise.

This is HOW it would happen in practice.

The judiciary defines those limits based on the constitution which the judiciary serves.
The constitution can be amended by 66% majority vote.
As I said the conceptual framework of democracy precludes your individual sovereignty being infringed upon. The mechanism of enforcing your individual sovereignty ultimately rests on the judicial system, just as it does now.

Pointing out that the conceptual framework of democracy acts as further protection to the rights you already enjoy in the constitution is no bad thing, no matter how you try and twist everything.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:58 am

romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:46 am
Wat?

You don't get to choose NOTA by staying at home. If only 30% show up with a NOTA option present that means 70% have abstained and will go along with what the majority of the 30% vote for. The NOTA option is too ensure that no-one is disenfranchised.

You make this incredibly hard work. Maybe you are just trolling.
Wat wat?

Now you are just confusing the issue. How would a voter exercise their NOTA option? Do they have to show up on voting day and tick it; or can they simply stay at home on voting day?

If they have to show up on voting day and tick a box then how is that different from a protest vote? e.g where you show up but don't tick anything on the ballot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_vote

If you came here expecting that "fixing democracy" would be easy work, maybe you don't understand why it's a hard problem?

It's not trolling. I am showing you how and why your plan will not survive contact with reality.

romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:46 am
As I said the conceptual framework of democracy precludes your individual sovereignty being infringed upon.
Familiarise yourself with the notion of the Applause Light. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLbkrPu ... use-lights

Unless you specify the mechanism which prevents my sovereignty being infringed upon then your proposal is nothing but a queue for an applause light.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:11 am

romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:06 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:36 am
romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:31 am
Yes that is exactly what it does, it ensures a consensus of 50+%. If you think that is a bad idea, then well, ok. Then oboviously you think democracy is a bad idea. Good luck on finding rulers to be nice to you.
It's neither a good idea nor a bad idea. Inaction can be just as harmful as action and so I require empirical evidence to make any moral judgments.

For example. If 51% of the population is too ignorant to understand the impact of global warming and don't show up on voting day to prevent signing the Kyoto protocol. I guess the other 49% are going to get very angry!

The world I exist in right now is better. Smart people who know how to play the game - know how to drive positive change despite the obstacles. This would make it much harder to game the system with good intentions.
Yes it would make it much harder to game the system and ensure a majority consensus in who gets into the legislature. I am glad you do understand the point of the reform, even if you don't agree on its beneficial impact. Why you think smart people will be gaming the system on our behalf, when there is no incentive t do so, I can even begin to guess. But there are plenty of smart people gaming the system on their own behalf, or those of special interest groups who reward them handsomely to do so.

I've suspected that people who are hostile to NOTA are hostile to democracy. And this is proving itself to be true.
I am not pro or anti-democracy. I am pro-risk management and pro harm-minimisation. If democracy has harmful consequences then democracy is a risk to be managed. And so I will do everything in my power to undermine the system. Will to power. It is also important to recognize that I do not have to be IN legislature to have control OVER legislature. Where there is a will - there is a way.

To believe in a system as a silver bullet is to become an ideologue.

Democracy only works if our collective goals are aligned. If 66% of a ship's crew and its captain decide to sink it democratically - you be sure I will kill as many of them idiots as I can to stay alive.

I don't care about rituals. I am in the game of winning - my strategy is harm minimisation! https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6ddcsdA ... ationality

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:28 am

romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:46 am
As I said the conceptual framework of democracy precludes your individual sovereignty being infringed upon. The mechanism of enforcing your individual sovereignty ultimately rests on the judicial system, just as it does now.

Pointing out that the conceptual framework of democracy acts as further protection to the rights you already enjoy in the constitution is no bad thing, no matter how you try and twist everything.
Your conceptual idea is nothing but good intentions.

Reality doesn't care about good intentions. Either it works or it doesn't work IN PRACTICE.

And so if your good intentions lead to catastrophic systematic collapse - then it was a crap idea! Irrespective of your intentions.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2422
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:52 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Reality doesnt care about good intentions . Either it works or it doesnt work IN PRACTICE
This is why pragmatism trumps idealism every single time and why I myself am one : because it works
Idealism is very well meaning but unless it leads to actual change then it is in practical terms useless

I have no intention of changing the world as that is beyond me [ and indeed everyone else too ]
Consequently I only focus my energy on what I can change [ me ] and just ignore anything else

romanv
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

Post by romanv » Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:22 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:52 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Reality doesnt care about good intentions . Either it works or it doesn't work IN PRACTICE
This is why pragmatism trumps idealism every single time and why I myself am one : because it works
Idealism is very well meaning but unless it leads to actual change then it is in practical terms useless

I have no intention of changing the world as that is beyond me [ and indeed everyone else too ]
Consequently I only focus my energy on what I can change [ me ] and just ignore anything else
The point of NOTA is that it increases what you can change. A lot of people give up on politics as its just too damn hard to make a difference by voting. NOTA removes that barrier. You go tick a box that rejects all on offer and suddenly you can affect change, whereas before you had to stand for election or go on endless protests, write letters, or as a lot of people do, just give up on it all.

Imagine you are an employer, perhaps you are, a number of agencies sent you a candidates to fill a vacancy, and you had to pick one, you could not reject them all, even though none are suitable. And if you tried, they say 'oh you are just being negative' or claim 'its impractical if you reject them all'.

They are obviously gas lighting you.

You would not accept such a situation as an employer, as you know you are being scammed. Why accept the same in election?

Don't get caught up in the conceptual framework, look at it on the practical level. You just have to tick a box. Its just one more box on the ballot that makes the difference to whether you have power or you don't.
Last edited by romanv on Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

Post by TimeSeeker » Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:27 pm

romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:22 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:52 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Reality doesnt care about good intentions . Either it works or it doesn't work IN PRACTICE
This is why pragmatism trumps idealism every single time and why I myself am one : because it works
Idealism is very well meaning but unless it leads to actual change then it is in practical terms useless

I have no intention of changing the world as that is beyond me [ and indeed everyone else too ]
Consequently I only focus my energy on what I can change [ me ] and just ignore anything else
The point of NOTA is that it increases what you can change. A lot of people give up on politics as its just too damn hard to make a difference by voting. NOTA removes that barrier. You go tick a box that rejects all on offer and suddenly you can affect change, whereas before you had to stand for election or go on endless protests, write letters, or as a lot of people do, just give up on it all.

Imagine you are an employer, perhaps you are, a number of agencies sent you a candidates to fill a vacancy, and you had to pick one, you could not reject them all, as none are suitable. And if you tried, they claim say 'oh you are just being negative' or 'its impractical'.

They are obviously gas lighting you.

You would not accept such a situation as an employer, as you know you are being scammed. Why accept the same in election?

Don't get caught up in the conceptual framework, look at it on the practical level. You just have to tick a box. Its just one more box on the ballot that makes the difference to whether you have power or you don't.
So we already have the mechanism? A spoiled vote.
What we lack is the policy where if 50% of votes in an election are spoiled then a re-election is required, whereas currently spoiled votes are simply discarded e.g carry no weight.

So NOTA is not about affecting change. It is about PREVENTING change.
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

romanv
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: The Ability to Formally Withhold Consent at Elections Leads to Real Democracy and Maximises the Common Good

Post by romanv » Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:28 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:28 am
romanv wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:46 am
As I said the conceptual framework of democracy precludes your individual sovereignty being infringed upon. The mechanism of enforcing your individual sovereignty ultimately rests on the judicial system, just as it does now.

Pointing out that the conceptual framework of democracy acts as further protection to the rights you already enjoy in the constitution is no bad thing, no matter how you try and twist everything.
Your conceptual idea is nothing but good intentions.

Reality doesn't care about good intentions. Either it works or it doesn't work IN PRACTICE.

And so if your good intentions lead to catastrophic systematic collapse - then it was a crap idea! Irrespective of your intentions.
I've reached the end of my patience with you.

Its not my conceptual framework, its the universally accepted framework for democracy on this entire planet; however, it requires a NOTA box to make that a reality.

That's it, all the hard work has been done. The massively complex systems to make democracy feasible are already in place. The NOTA option just makes them all work for EVERYONE. Now the system can no longer be gamed.

Whether you agree with the conceptual framework that justifies the NOTA option is irrelevant. Just focus on its practical application.

How it works in practice is you go to the voting booth and if the election does not guarantee an outcome you find acceptable, you tick the NOTA box, and if enough people think like you, you get a new election.

Straight forward.
Last edited by romanv on Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests