• romanv
    43
    Please critique.

    Background: I advocate for a 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option to be on the ballot based on it being a prerequisite for democratic elections.

    Definition of real representative democracy: The adherence to popular sovereignty, by which we mean, the authority of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives.

    This is ‘real democracy’.

    If that is the case then a democratic electoral model must allow people to withhold their consent, as otherwise obviously is not possible to give consent.

    This is the function of NOTA. It allows people to withhold their consent for an election can declare a winner, and if over 50% choose this option in an electorate, e.g. MP constituency, that electorate can be said to have withheld their consent, so the election cannot declare a winner and must be re-run.

    In the meantime, the seat remains empty and automatically registers as a ‘No’ vote for any proposed legislation as that is a true reflection of their will.

    This is the conceptual framework that forms the basis of the proposal..

    Current electoral models can be summed up as ‘lead, follow, or get out of the way’. It is anti-democratic, and tends to authoritarianism, with an out of touch political elite who have far too much room to pursue their own petty agendas, or sell the voting public out to wealthy donors.

    This fault can only be remedied by a NOTA option.

    What is the benefit of a ‘real democracy’?

    If the NOTA option is implemented following the tenets of real democracy, it will lead to the maximization of the common good (policies, decisions, and actions by the state that are beneficial to most or all members of that nation).

    How would one know if the common good has been maximized?

    Voters have to live with the consequences of their decisions, therefore only they can be the final arbiters of the common good.

    They will make choices that will be of benefit to them, and discard choices that make them worse off. Therefore, over time, they themselves will be able to steer society to a point where the common good has been maximized, if – and only if- they have the power.

    NOTA provides that power.

    How?

    The NOTA option becomes a powerful voting bloc encompassing voters from all political stripes. It serves to unite all those who are dissatisfied, and ensures only a candidate with the consent of the majority can enter parliament.

    This characteristic opens the path to the maximisation of the common good as candidates must constantly compete with each for voters from within the NOTA bloc, and keep serving their current voters; this pressure inevitably results in the maximisation of the common good in the long run.

    NOTA is not just for people who don’t have anyone to vote for, its use extends much further.

    It is also for voters who are voting for the least of several evils, voters who political party has no chance of winning, or is uncertain to win, people who have a preferred candidate or political party, but some aspect of either the candidate, or policy platform is unacceptable to them.

    In fact, unless an election can guarantee a winner acceptable to the voter, then that voter can, and arguably should, choose NOTA until their conditions are met, as only then can the state be a reflection of their will, as it should in a real democracy.

    Currently we have an elected oligarchy who bend the state to their will; we elect rulers, not representatives.

    NOTA puts a stop to all that.

    The inclusion of NOTA also prevents the use of negative campaigning as a tactic, as all negative campaigning will do is increase the share of the NOTA vote, so there no longer any tactical advantage in it.

    It also removes money from politics, and the so also the candidates who enter politics for financial gain, as once voters have veto power, money cannot buy results, and so will leave politics of its own accord and the voter will become truly sovereign.

    The true power of NOTA is that it opens the political sphere to people who have talent and integrity who want to truly represent the voting public, but at the moment are not able to deal with the vicious and theatrical nature of the political environment. It takes the politics out of politics, and ensures it will only be focused on real issues that are of concern to the voting public.

    Thanks for reading, please let me know what you think, especially is there anything unclear, or if you see a flaw in the reasoning, or anything at all really.

    I have a co-authored a white paper on the topic and this is an extremely condensed version of it, much has been left out, but hopefully the salient points remain.
  • NuncAmissa
    47

    Is it the same as leaving the circle beside all the candidates as empty or is NOTA something that forces the parties to change their platforms?
  • Terrapin Station
    9.1k
    This is the function of NOTA. It allows people to withhold their consent for an election can declare a winner, and if over 50% choose this option in an electorate, e.g. MP constituency, that electorate can be said to have withheld their consent, so the election cannot declare a winner and must be re-run.

    In the meantime, the seat remains empty and automatically registers as a ‘No’ vote for any proposed legislation as that is a true reflection of their will.
    romanv

    In that scenario, I can picture offices remaining empty for years on end, while meanwhile all sorts of economic, infrastructural, etc. disasters pile up.
  • romanv
    43
    Is it the same as leaving the circle beside all the candidates as empty or is NOTA something that forces the parties to change their platforms?

    It would be an additional option on the ballot. It should be used, not just when you don't have anyone for whom you wish to vote, but if the election does not guarantee you with an adequate representative.

    The election is held solely for the voter and to expect them to give their consent when they are not guaranteed adequate representation is a ludicrous situation if you think about it.

    If more than 50% choose that option, the election would be re-run, and parties would have to dig into the reasons why people held their consent, and change either the candidate, or policy platforms to prevent that from happening in the re-run.

    Even if the number of voters choosing NOTA did not meet that 50+% threshold, it will still provide feedback on the level of public dissatisfaction that is clear and unambiguous, which is invaluable information to those who wish to serve the public.

    In future elections candidates would compete with one another to minimise the number of voters going into the NOTA bloc, so there will be a continuous pressure for good governance.

    I realise I went well beyond the scope of your question, but I think the answer provides valuable background on the topic. I hope so anyway.
  • romanv
    43


    I can picture offices remaining empty for years on end, while meanwhile all sorts of economic, infrastructural, etc. disasters pile up.

    That is not the fault of NOTA. That scenario is demonstrating that no candidate is capable in receiving the consent of the majority. Its like the doctor telling you that you have cancer and you decide the best course of action is to stop seeing the doctor.

    In this case perhaps the electoral system needs to change to a PR system. NOTA is still required in that system.

    In a simplified hypothetical PR system as an example, the percentage of people choosing NOTA will result in that percentage of seats remaining empty in the legislature, all automatically counted as a vote against any new legislation.

    Obviously parties would be allocated seats according to the percentage of their votes. However, the legislature is incentivised to minimise the number of empty seats, and in this case they will be forced to work together to maximise the common good.

    Without NOTA you cant have real democracy. Real democracy will inevitably lead to the maixmisation of the common good.

    I don't think your scenario is realistic, as voters live with the consequences of their actions, so they would inevitably vote in their best interests anyway.
  • Terrapin Station
    9.1k
    I don't think your scenario is realistic,romanv

    Maybe it isn't, but I don't think we can know whether it is simply by sitting in a chair and thinking about it.

    I think that the mere possibility of it suggests that the approach wouldn't be a good idea.

    (Of course, I have no inherent love for democracy. Personally, I couldn't care less what the structure of the government is a la whether it's a democracy, an oligarchy, a monarchy, etc. All I care about are what laws the government does and doesn't institute, how the government does or doesn't benefit the citizenry, and so on)
  • romanv
    43


    I think that the mere possibility of it suggests that the approach wouldn't be a good idea.

    The doctor might tell you that you are ill, so don't go to the doctor?

    Its a very odd way of looking at things. You think that the level of public dissatisfaction is so high that no-one will get elected, so you think the best thing to do is brush it under the carpet, and prevent it from being expressed?

    Is there any other scenario where adults should not be allowed to say 'no' from time to time?

    Would you continue to vote NOTA while the country went to ruin? NOTA exists to ensure the best representation for voters. You have somehow twisted that into visions of dereliction and ruin.

    The basic assumption of democracy functions on this 'thought': Voters will ensure that their best interests are served, as they live the consequences of the decisions made by their representatives.

    If you think that assumption is flawed, then you think that democracy doesn't work.

    You are looking to be ruled, and think that there is someone out there that will look out for you while you sit back. Real democracy will maximise the common good, and nothing else can do so.

    What you suggest is so impossible it can be discounted in totality.
  • Terrapin Station
    9.1k
    Its a very odd way of looking at things. You think that the level of public dissatisfaction is so high that no-one will get elected, so you think the best thing to do is brush it under the carpet, and prevent it from being expressed?romanv

    I think it's better to not just put everything indefinitely in limbo just because we don't love any of the choices.

    I've never loved anyone running for office, by the way.

    Is there any other scenario where adults should not be allowed to say 'no' from time to time?romanv

    I think that's irrelevant. We're talking about a particular situation.

    Voters will ensure that their best interests are served,romanv

    What I've typically done is try to balance my vote between the person who I think is the least crappy of all of the crappy candidates, and not always just "waste" my vote by voting for some weird third-party candidate.

    then you think that democracy doesn't work.romanv

    Again, the structure is really irrelevant to me. I don't think there are any inherent merits to any particualr governmental structure. I couldn't care less whether the government is a democracy or not. I care about what the laws are, etc.

    You are looking to be ruled,romanv

    I think it's unavoidable to be ruled. Unless I'm made king of the world, at least.

    Real democracy will maximise the common good, and nothing else can do so.romanv

    That's not a bumper sticker that I agree with. Probably because my views are so unusual re what's good. It's not at all the case that letting everyone decide anything is more likely to result in laws that I agree with. I don't agree with most people re what laws we should have.
  • romanv
    43
    I think it's better to not just put everything indefinitely in limbo just because we don't love any of the choices.

    You think its better the seat be filled with someone who the majority dont want in power, as opposed to having someone who does have the consent of the majority. Well, ok then. Nobody is forcing you to choose NOTA, so dont choose it.

    However others may want the best for their life, and harnessing that desire wthin a democratic framework will lead to the maximization of the common good. But bc you envision a possibility that is absurd, you are against it for everyone.

    Its not unavoidable to be ruled, NOTA changes the relationship between the elected and the elector from ruler to representative.

    Whether we have a democracy may be irrelevaht to you, but it is considered the best form if governance by over 90% of people in a global survey. It is also a form of governance that the UK claims to observe, and it is a legal requirement for the UK for it to do so.

    Thanks for your input.
  • romanv
    43
    I think it's better to not just put everything indefinitely in limbo just because we don't love any of the choices.

    So you think that even if more than 50% choose NOTA we should still have the election declare a winner. Well, ok then. No-one is forcing you to choose NOTA, if you think its better choosing a crappy candidate who wont represent you well, over waiting a few months for one who would represent the majority, that totally up to you, pick one. Its an absurd position, but you be you.

    If NOTA reform is implemented, then elections fulfill the tenets of democracy and this opens up the path to maximisation of the common good, but this is not a goal worth pursuing in your eyes.

    Your objection for everyone else doing so is that you envision an absurd possibility that voters will misuse the new power to withhold their consent, so society becomes even worse off than previously, even though they live with the consequences of their decisions.

    What I've typically done is try to balance my vote between the person who I think is the least crappy of all of the crappy candidates,

    This is what millions do, and it is absurd that our current system only allows a voter to choose the least crappy candidate, or vote for someone who has no chance of winning, or some loon in an impotent protest, or spoil your ballot (which is lumped in with those spoilt in error, and only counts an abstention anyway), none of which will ever help the voter get the representation they need.

    Again if that fine with you, you go ahead and never use NOTA.

    The reform is intended to remedy this flaw, but, quite bizarrely, your position is that you don't want the flaw remedied. As having a seat empty for a few months not a price worth paying, but having a crappy candidate who will work against the interests of the majority is just fine and dandy.

    I don't think there are any inherent merits to any particualr governmental structure.

    This is another absurd position to hold. Maybe you are just trolling.

    I care about what the laws are, etc.

    The UK government is legally obliged to be a democracy.

    I think it's unavoidable to be ruled.

    The point of democracy is that we are not ruled, but represented. The inclusion of the NOTA option makes that ideal a reality.

    That's not a bumper sticker that I agree with.

    You don't have to agree to anything, this is because you should not be ruled.

    However, once people have the power of self determination, they are not going to make choices that are detrimental to themselves are they?

    If you harness that natural desire within a democratic framework, it inevitably leads to the maximisation of the common good, whether you agree or not.
  • Valentinus
    393

    When considering your appeal to a change of procedure, it may be helpful to consider why some say "none of the above" won't be showing up on the menu of available alternatives.

    They will make choices that will be of benefit to them, and discard choices that make them worse off. Therefore, over time, they themselves will be able to steer society to a point where the common good has been maximized, if – and only if- they have the power.romanv

    One of the observations made by communitarians such as Ivan Illich is that power to change an environment involves not becoming a tiny cog in the forces of production. From his point of view, changing representation, supporting the continuance of useful skills, permitting desirable forms of life are bound up with changing how we make and exchange things.

    I don't share Illich's optimism but he does a good job of representing what optimism looks like.
  • romanv
    43
    When considering your appeal to a change of procedure, it may be helpful to consider why some say "none of the above" won't be showing up on the menu of available alternatives.

    Can you be more specific? Advancing this reform is an uphill battle, as even though I think the arguments are unassailable, those who already hold power would be loathe to change the status quo.

    I have read your post several times, but am not getting your point.

    You think we need to present our arguments in a different way?
  • Bitter Crank
    7.7k
    I am in favor of experimenting with a "NOTA option. The experiment can be carried out in local elections first -- city councils, mayors, and the like. It may be that the state would have to approve a change such as this for statewide offices. Minneapolis, for instance, started "ranked choice" voting a few years ago, where one can vote for first choice, second choice, or third choice (if a choice exists -- which it does fairly often. Counting the votes is more complicated for ranked choice.).

    IN a sense, many people do vote for NOTA by not voting at all, but a NOTA slot on the ballot would make for much clearer meaning: No! I don't like the choices offered.

    A consequence of NOTA should be that the political conventions (at whatever level) would take more care in choosing candidates--candidates that had a better chance of exceeding the minimum number of confirming votes.

    I would have voted for NOTA fairly often in the past, had it been available.
  • romanv
    43
    I am in favor of experimenting with a "NOTA option.

    I am in 2 minds about this. I understand where you are coming from, if we lived in an ideal world where people tried things out in good faith, I would have no objection to this route.

    However, it could be that a trial introduction, just remains a trial, and a pretext to bin the reform will be found. Then it would be, well we tried, but ...(insert excuse here) we are not going to expand its use.

    A few years ago we advocated for NOTA to a parliamentary committee convened to look into electoral reform. They recommended that the electoral commission start looking into the NOTA option. Not long after, there was a general election and literally within a week or 2, the incoming government disbanded the committee, and the main opposition raised no objection.

    They just do not want to change the status quo. Perhaps the environment is better in the USA, but you cant trust the UK government to look into this reform fairly.
  • Herg
    131
    I live in the UK. For the past 34 years, I have been a non-Tory living in an ultra-safe Tory constituency. Teresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will fly over my house on the backs of pigs, holding hands and singing 'Rule Britannia', before the Tories lose this seat. If I vote for anyone other than the Tory, my vote is simply wasted. In fact it is wasted even if I vote for the Tory, because the outcome is a foregone conclusion every single time.

    So I do not vote.

    We had a chance to get a half-way decent voting system in the 2011 referendum. I did vote in that one, but of course the British electorate, with its usual stunning grasp of the issue at stake, threw away its once-in-lifetime chance to get rid of this antiquated, unjust and immoral system.

    You can put NOTA on the ballot paper if you like. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. It's a complete irrelevance as far as I'm concerned.
  • Terrapin Station
    9.1k
    You think its better the seat be filled with someone who the majority dont want in power, as opposed to having someone who does have the consent of the majority.romanv

    The "as opposed to" option was "having no one in the office."
  • Bitter Crank
    7.7k
    if we lived in an ideal world where people tried things out in good faith, I would have no objection to this route.romanv

    No matter what we do--keep the old system, try a new one, or have a bloody revolution and end up in chaos--some people will not be acting in good faith. That's just a given. There are liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels in every society, and they tend to fuck things up.

    Perhaps the environment is better in the USA, but you cant trust the UK government to look into this reform fairly.romanv

    NO NO, the environment is NOT better in the USA. The two parties have an iron grip on the status quo. I'm not sure that god can loosen their death grip.
  • Bitter Crank
    7.7k
    When you want to quote somebody, highlight the text and then click on the word "Quote" that will appear next to the highlighted text. This accomplishes two things: it tells the reader who you are quoting, and if the reader clicks on the name quoted, the reader will be taken to the post from which the quote was taken. The second thing using "Quote" does is send a message to the person quoting stating that so and so has quoted you.

    Same thing for responding to a post. Clicking on the left-pointing arrow under the post notifies the person to whom you are responding that you have made a comment.
  • romanv
    43


    I have been a non-Tory living in an ultra-safe Tory constituency.

    You can put NOTA on the ballot paper if you like. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. It's a complete irrelevance as far as I'm concerned.

    Aha. I was waiting for this take. This is a common misconception. Please bear with me, I don't know in which constituency you live, but the inclusion of NOTA will can have a substantial impact in narrowing the number so-called 'safe-seats' in general.

    In our white paper. we used an example of the 41st most safe conservative seat. (it was initially picked as we thought it was the 100th most safe seat, but turned out to be the 41st most safe seat for the conservatives). There are about 368 safe seats out of 650 between the various parties; this is why we have such bad representation, and party politics dominates our lives imo.

    In that seat, the conservatives won with 45% of the vote, if you include those who did not vote they had 32% of the vote.

    They won bc the opposition was divided or had to get out of the way.

    With NOTA, all the opposition can go into one politically neutral option: the NOTA option.

    In that seat, there is no point in you voting Labour (unless you don't mind the Conservative winning). You, and all those who voted for other parties, can (and arguably should) choose the NOTA option.

    Turnout in that constituency was 71%. How many of the remaining 29% did not vote bc there was no chance of their preferred candidate winning (like you), or none of the candidates/parties represented them adequately? We have no way of knowing. (Surveys indicate there are substantial numbers of such people.)

    How many of the Conservative voters voted for the Conservative candidate as they though he was the least crappy candidate, even thought they had severe reservations? We have no way of knowing.( in the last election, 20% voted tactically, and substantial numbers vote 'holding their nose'.)

    NOTA ensures your vote is not wasted. As you are in a very powerful, but politically neutral bloc of NOTA voters, encompassing people of all political stripes, but who are united in their dissatisfaction with the potential outcome of the election.

    A voter should be guaranteed an acceptable outcome, otherwise they should choose NOTA. How can anyone give their consent to an election declaring a winner when there is a chance that they wont get adequate representation?

    The voting system is there to serve us, we are not there to serve the voting system.

    Now you can start to see at least some of your views being reflected in the winning candidate, as they will have to adjust their platform and/or candidate to get your consent.

    Supposing the level of NOTA remains very high, then it makes a compelling case for voter led electoral reform, the most likely result is a PR system.

    A PR system needs a NOTA option also. I wont go into it now, but can you see how much impact NOTA can have?

    I hope this provides you with some additional insight into the possibilities that are opened up with a NOTA option. You are the kind of person we are hoping to convince to support NOTA. If I have made you re-consider your position I would be very happy.
  • romanv
    43

    This is why I am in 2 minds about the experiment route. I would rather have this option just be put on the ballot without giving anyone a chance to find a way to stop it in the experimental stage.

    I think there is a compelling legal case for its inclusion, but right now I want to spread awareness on just how much we are missing out without this option.

    People think it is of marginal use, nothing can be further from the truth, it is fundamental to a democratic electoral system.
  • romanv
    43
    There is no moral justification for having someone in office who does not have the consent of majority in a democracy.

    If you think democracy is meaningless, as you seem to suggest, then you be you.
  • Terrapin Station
    9.1k


    Justifications period are subjective.
  • Herg
    131
    NOTA ensures your vote is not wasted.romanv

    Only if all the non-Tory candidates stand down, leaving just the Tory and NOTA on the ballot paper. Otherwise what you will most likely get is a split vote across the other candidates and NOTA, and thus no guarantee that the NOTA vote will be effective.

    Now you can start to see at least some of your views being reflected in the winning candidate, as they will have to adjust their platform and/or candidate to get your consent.romanv

    I don't think so. People putting a cross in the NOTA box could have a variety of reasons for doing so: they might dislike all the candidates, they might dislike all the parties who are standing in their constituency, they might just be disenchanted with something about their country or locale. NOTA is inarticulate, and provides no reason for any party or candidate to change anything. Since the ballot is secret, the candidates will be unable to ask those who voted NOTA why they did it.

    A voter should be guaranteed an acceptable outcome, otherwise they should choose NOTA. How can anyone give their consent to an election declaring a winner when there is a chance that they wont get adequate representation?romanv

    No system can ever guarantee an outcome acceptable to all voters. The most it can do is allow every voter to have an equal influence on the representative institutions, i.e. parliament.

    Supposing the level of NOTA remains very high, then it makes a compelling case for voter led electoral reform, the most likely result is a PR system.romanv

    I think you are putting the cart before the horse. If we had PR, my vote would not be wasted. With NOTA, my vote will still be wasted unless enough non-Tories in my constituency cooperate in voting NOTA to outvote the Tories, which seems to me very unlikely.

    PR first; then let's talk about NOTA.
  • romanv
    43


    Only if all the non-Tory candidates stand down, leaving just the Tory and NOTA on the ballot paper. Otherwise what you will most likely get is a split vote across the other candidates and NOTA, and thus no guarantee that the NOTA vote will be effective.

    No. This is the entire point of having NOTA. If you are in a Tory safe seat and don't approve of the Tory candidate, no matter your views, you can choose NOTA. It puts all the opposition into one basket. It undermines the entire reason why both the conservative and labour will not change to a PR system.

    Currently all the small parties do is divide the opposition and shoehorn in either Labour or Tory (usually) with a plurality. And of those who vote for either, many are not happy voters.

    Obviously not all voters will fully understand the use of NOTA, but once you start getting even 20% in the NOTA bloc, parties and candidates will begin to compete for these votes, and improve what is admittedly a bad system.

    I don't think so. People putting a cross in the NOTA box could have a variety of reasons for doing so

    Yes, you understand the vast the scope of the NOTA option immediately. I disagree that they don't know why NOTA was chosen. Local party activists will know exactly why NOTA was chosen, and in fact its very presence will ensure parties begin to start taking mitigating measures to prevent voters choosing NOTA.

    Also, I very much doubt the FPTP system can reduce the number of NOTA voters to an acceptable level, so moving to PR will becomes inevitable. Currently, neither Labour or Conservative have any incentive to allow this change to occur, as it will destroy their duopoly on power.

    No system can ever guarantee an outcome acceptable to all voters. The most it can do is allow every voter to have an equal influence on the representative institutions, i.e. parliament.

    Its not meant to. It is inevitable that in a FPTP system that not all voters will get what they want, but NOTA can be used to ensure only a candidate with the consent of the majority can enter parliament, which is a vast improvement on what we have now.

    I think you are putting the cart before the horse. If we had PR, my vote would not be wasted. With NOTA, my vote will still be wasted unless enough non-Tories in my constituency cooperate in voting NOTA to outvote the Tories, which seems to me very unlikely.

    No co-operation is required as such, you all vote in your self-interest. However all are united in one bloc that is politically neutral, no-one need endorse any other candidate. No co-operation required, just people voting what they think is in their own interest, and there is nothing wrong with that.

    I have no disagreement with PR.

    But PR needs NOTA. Even in a PR system you are a captive to party politics, you have to accept the entire party platform and candidates, whether you like it or not. It is very unlikely that a single party can form a government on its own, so the compromises reached to form a government may not have the consent of the majority. Nor is their any incentive in parliament to maximise the common good, they can easily fall into dysfunction (as we are now) and there is nothing that can be done.

    Now add the NOTA option and all that changes. Take a example of a simplified hypothetical PR system, where the percentage of votes determines the allocation of seats.

    Say it is a 100 seat legislature. So 20% of the vote, gets 20 seats. If 20% vote NOTA, those seats remain empty and automatically vote against all proposed legislation (this is the democratically valid consequence of choosing NOTA).

    Then the legislature must constantly work to maximise the common good in an effort to keep the number of empty seats to a minimum.

    NOTA aligns the interests of the legislature with their voters. This is democracy.
  • hks
    171
    Sounds like a big waste of time to have such a proposal. Politics is always about choosing the lesser of two weevils.
  • Herg
    131
    You seem to be in this forum to make converts. You won't convert me, because your presentation of NOTA seems to me one-sided and utopian. But I don't want to waste either your time or mine, so I'm going to leave this discussion at this point.
  • romanv
    43


    Why not toss the he 2 weevils out?
  • romanv
    43


    Yes of course I am trying to make converts. I told you that at the start.

    I am presenting the the option as well as I can. Why not? However, I addressed each of your points sincerely and as best as I could.

    We can either be ruled or be represented.

    All I can do is demonstrate the logical consequences of changing from being ruled to represented. I don't know about utopia, but the end result is having a world as good as its ever going to be.

    People are in charge of their own destiny and they get to choose what works and what doesn't. Is that utopia, or what should be just normal?

    Perhpaps we now regard dysfunction as normal and normal as 'utopia'.

    And remember, all I am describing is real democracy. Is real democracy utopia? Should we not at least try to find out? Can this option do any harm? Its potential is to maximise the common good, is it not worth at least trying it?

    Adding another tick box on the ballot and democratically valid consequences for that choice is all it takes. Not exactly going to cost anything is it?
  • Terrapin Station
    9.1k
    People are in charge of their own destiny and they get to choose what works and what doesn't.romanv

    I don't get to choose that because no one agrees with me.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.