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.
@Wolf480pl @pesco @webmind @ente @strypey what will change the incentives is changing the electoral system to Single Transferrable Vote:
Instead of coming up with hare-brained schemes involving obstructionism and blockchain, perhaps we should first do some research into actually viable solutions?..
I wasn't serious with the blockchain part. Sorry if that made you angry.
I know about STV, but it's pretty complicated, It'd be a big change to the electorial system, and would the whole thing harder to understand. OTOH, a "NO" party is simple, and doesn't require changes in the electorial system.
I'm not saying it'd solve all problems, or most of the problems. I'm just saying it's an idea worth investigating.
I've voted in STV elections for local govt back home, it really isn't that complicated. People who can't be bothered thinking it through still have the option of treating it like a FPP election, and just putting (1) next to their preferred candidate instead of a tick. You could even have a rule that a tick counts as a (1) for that candidate in case people get confused.
@webmind sorry, will untag you from all further posts about voting. I'm curious, what does political involvement and decision-making look like to you without any kind of voting system?
@strypey voting is one thing, but I would hardly call it involvement. Pressing like/dislike is hardly anything. Outside how people skew numbers.
I'm interested in discussion. Politicians for instance talking to people. Actually getting content from people, not just numbers.
@webmind Sure, but everyone talks to people. How do you channel that into productive decision-making? In my experience this doesn't just happen, and when it doesn't, bad things can happen
@strypey dunno, it's a wide topic. But for instance how to get politicians more connected to diverse crowds of people, but also how to educate people on topics on the 'political agenda'