Yeah, I know it wouldn't work long-term. But so often it seems that every time someone proposes a change to the law, someone takes it as an opportunity to inject their shitty article into it.
And they're usually the worst. Blocking marriage equality, gender equality regulations, environmental regulations, etc etc.
@Wolf480pl @pesco @webmind @ente @strypey yes, but *by definition* this preserves old regulation. Like marriage inequality, like freedom to polute. There is literally no good reason to have a party like that. This will no achieve anything.
What we need are parties that vote sane. Not obstructionists.
It will change the game.
The basic idea behind democracy is that to rule, a party needs support of the society.
Currently there's an anomaly that if the society doesn't support any party, then some party still gets to rule, even though the society doesn't support it.
What I propose is that if the society doesn't support any party, then NOBODY gets to rule.
This will change the incentives for parties, because they'll have to be better than nothing.
35-40% is still less than 50%.
Also, some people vote for "better of two evils".
Also, maybe some people who don't vote would vote for "NO" instead.
Also, an old and well-known evil is better than new evil, because people know what to expect and have workarounds for some issues.
Manufacturer-specific phone chargers weren't that bad, from my POV.
@Wolf480pl @pesco @firstname.lastname@example.org @rysiek
I do like the symbolism of empty seats, representing the non-vote. I even had some ideas about organizing a No Confidence party that would legally bind itself not to attend or vote in parliament.But the problem in practice is it concentrates the power of elected representatives in an smaller and even less representative number of hands. What if your 5 votes (or whatever) were the difference between something awesome happening (eg ending drug prohibition) or not?