Subject:
|
Re: National vote on handguns?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:21:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
708 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > > This does not make 100% sense to me - getting rid of a lot of laws only to
> > > referendum them back. Why not just Constitutional-ise referenda, and use
> > > them to remove/add laws?
> >
> > The reason that I think it makes sense is that if it took 75% of the people • to
> > agree, most of them wouldn't be voted back in place.
>
> Actually, the reason it *doesn't* make sense is that you require a 75%
> consensus. In a group of just 12 people it's hard to get 75% agreement on
> what kind of pizza to get; do you honestly expect that *any* issue, when put
> before a vote by the entire US voting populace, will pass?
Sure. I don't want to invest a lot in defense of this system that I created
in four seconds while reading the note before, but I do actually think that
part of it has merit. I'm sure that 75% of us would agree that stealing and
murdering and raping folks is a crime. We might agree that states should be
able to pass laws pertaining to the states' inhabitants. I suspect
(unfortunately) that we would vote income tax back into existence. Lots of
people would disagree with lots of details, so the problem might be in refining
concepts enough to actually get useful legislation passed (dealing with how we
treat murderers rather than just agreeing that they've been naughty).
But seriously, I do think that some larger percent ought to be needed in enact
law. I think the reason we have tons of stupid laws is that it is too easy to
get them passed.
> What exactly, under a 75% voting majority opinion, is an "obvious
> victimization?"
Trespass. (just kidding!) Murder.
> It seems that we can't establish agreement on
> meta-organizational issues in the first place, and in any case, how would we
> document such "agreement?" By a plurality? By the loudest voice?
I'm not sure I understand the issue. Are you wondering how, without any
structure at all, we would do things like record laws? (For that matter, how
would we even collect votes, right?) I guess we'd kind of need to build in
some basic infrastructural issues just to make anything happen.
Maybe a less radical departure from our current system is what I'd really like.
How about a constitution that looks an awful lot like our original
constitution and bill of rights -- but with the details that need clarification
clarified, and then layered on top of that a 75% pass rate? Surely if
something really needed legislative attention, we would agree. Hell, maybe
such an experience would make us agree more and learn to empathize better than
we've been doing..?
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) Actually, the reason it *doesn't* make sense is that you require a 75% consensus. In a group of just 12 people it's hard to get 75% agreement on what kind of pizza to get; do you honestly expect that *any* issue, when put before a vote by the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
110 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
