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 @firstname.lastname@example.org @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.
@Wolf480pl @pesco @webmind @email@example.com @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.
@strypey @rysiek @pesco @webmind @ente
It's harder to implement a new system than to slightly adjust an existing system, especially that the "NO" party could be implemented without any change to the existing implementation of voting system.
By "hard to reason about" I mean, it is harder to predict how your votes will affect the results, harder to externally verify if the system functions correctly, and harder to predict how it'll behave as a part of a larger 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.
Well given a representative democracy, decision making can be done by those in power. but those parties are usually way to much removed from people.
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'
I absolutely agree that the NO party would not make good policy, I sure wouldn't vote for them, and I believe in order for them to be constitutional they couldn't even traditionally advertise that you should.
I take your point that there would be large overlap with conservative parties by definition. But would it be worse than a conservative party? At least it would be cheaper and less susceptible to corruption. :)
Anyway as @Wolf480pl says, there are people, as a matter of fact, who hate all parties and feel betrayed by a menu of terrible choices. It's a large part of the current populist surge. So a literal NO choice would be seen as a corrective term to steer the system back to a reasonable menu "before it comes to Trump".
Hope that makes it clear that I don't actually *want* obstruction. ;)
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!