Isn't this what I said?romanv wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:28 pmI've reached the end of my patience with you.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:28 amYour conceptual idea is nothing but good intentions.romanv wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:46 amAs 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.
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.
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 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.
NOTA is an option to PREVENT change, not DRIVE change
So if we hold an election/referendum to sign the Kyoto protocol or the Paris Agreement and the electorate likes neither option they tick NOTA.
And we (society) do nothing about global warming. Then we go and celebrate the effectiveness of democracy!