And for further readers, romanv continuously ignores the hard questions and only cares about idealized scenarios. I think (s)he just seeks validation that NOTA is a good idea, because (s)he sure can't handle criticism.romanv wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:06 pm
One poster constantly straw-manning by demanding the mechanism by which those rights are guaranteed.
I responded that the judicial system is in place, and there is often a constitution that demarcates the limits of the state, and the concept of 'real democracy' can only bolster the notion our freedom is a necessary precondition to democracy, and serve as further arguments to present to the courts.
However I have to somehow come up with a guarantee that rights will not be stripped, which is nuts.
How this has anything to with the inclusion of NOTA on the ballot is something you have to ask him.
If a "real democracy" is a system where one cannot be stripped of their rights (romanv's own definition!), and the government is held to account by the judicial system, and the judicial system gains its authority from the constitution then what mechanism would prevent the constitution from being amended through voting which results in one being stripped of their rights?
Straw-manning or destroying the argument? You decide
It is only logical to conclude that such a conception of "real democracy" is self-defeating and only exists in theory, but not in practice which makes NOTA a non-sequitur.
NOTA must be examined on its own merits based on the present-day system dynamics and democratic trends. One must ask - is NOTA going to increase or decrease voter apathy (which is a global trend and a more pertinent systemic risk to democracy). https://www.idea.int/sites/default/file ... -world.pdf