@ente @webmind @strypey and yes, burnout is a huge problem. But poretty much unsolvable unless "our side" starts having enough resources to manage such campaigns not as emergencies...

@rysiek
If only we had popular organizations with big budgets that let people make it their job to participate in the political process and fight for us.
@ente @webmind @strypey

@webmind @pesco @rysiek @ente @strypey
I bet many people wouldn't mind a government that does completely nothing.
A feature freeze of sorts.
No new law.
Everything keeps working as it was before.

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.

@Wolf480pl
I actually think there should be a "deterministic 'NO' party" whose program is literally to vote against *any* change to the status quo. A default to choose if every other party seems terrible, a force to to make the others have to be not terrible.
@webmind @rysiek @ente @strypey

@pesco @Wolf480pl @webmind @ente @strypey you're describing the conservative parties. That's where the name comes from.

And they're usually the worst. Blocking marriage equality, gender equality regulations, environmental regulations, etc etc.

Even in #saveyourinternet it's aout *preserving old business models* in the age of Internets. So conservatives are often the ones who are voting for #Art11 #Art13, by and large.

@rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente @strypey

This is not what he's describing.

It's not about preserving the overall status quo, it's about paralyzing the parliment.
Therefore, the proposed party must vote "NO" in all circumstances.

@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.

@rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente @strypey

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:
youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_t

Instead of coming up with hare-brained schemes involving obstructionism and blockchain, perhaps we should first do some research into actually viable solutions?..

@rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente @strypey

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.

@Wolf480pl @rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente@chaos.social
> "I know about STV, but it's pretty complicated"

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.

@strypey @rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente

I'm not saying they're hard to use, I'm saying they're hard to reason about.

@Wolf480pl @ente @webmind @pesco @rysiek @strypey Several places use them regularly, so implementation seems a solved problem?

And reasoning about them ... I guess opinion polls become a more difficult issue, would be interested to hear how that works in places that use them.

On the plus side, the election provides more data on voter preferences, which would be fun for statisticians to mine. Unless more information just means harder to reason about. :-)

@notclacke

@Wolf480pl @ente @pesco @rysiek @strypey

I'm more interested in more involvement. Less about voting. Please don't @ me about voting systems they bore me and tbh are as stupidly simplified as clicking 'like' is.

@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

Decision making structures are one thing. Developing a basis on what one can make decisions another. The latter I find more interesting.

@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'

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

This Mastodon instance is provided gratis by the NZ Open Source Society for the benefit of everyone interested in their own freedom and sharing with others. Hosting is generously provided by Catalyst Cloud right here in Aotearoa New Zealand.