Is it the case that is cannot be done now?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:02 amSo such a system would still suffer from the problem where 68% of the population can vote away the rights of the other 32%?romanv wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:20 amI did a bad job of answering your post, so let try again.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?
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.
As a concrete example: repealing the 2nd amendment.
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.