Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yes, definitely. Override uneducated decisions that harm the republic, regardless of "the will of the people" [1] [2] [3] [4]. That is exactly why republics exist versus direct democracy.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” -- Winston Churchill (edit: supposedly Churchill did not say this; I'm keeping it, as it helps express the idea)

Disclaimer: American

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-majority-of-british-peo... (POLL: A majority of British people regret voting for Brexit)

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-polls/britain-... (Britain would now vote to stay in the EU by six point margin, new poll shows)

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-vot... (‘I thought I’d put in a protest vote’: the people who regret voting leave)

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United... (Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum)

But "the republic" is not a uniform mass. What's good for some is bad for others. It is far from certain for me at least that the huge influx of cheap labor from Eastern Europe does not harm the lower classes in Britain. I'm pretty certain, on the other hand, that this works extremely well for the upper classes.

Besides, given the quality and moral scruples of "decision makers" that governments are usually comprised of, why would you so completely trust them with the fate of the republic in the first place, especially if the populace does not have the benefit of either the first or the second amendment of US constitution?

This strikes me as a hypocritical position. I bet you'd say otherwise if e.g. the will of the people was to remain, but the government decided to exit, because in their estimation it'd be better for Britain. You can't pick and choose. If your position is that government knows best, you should be prepared that the government will make decisions you don't like, too.

> This strikes me as a hypocritical position. I bet you'd say otherwise if e.g. the will of the people was to remain, but the government decided to exit, because in their estimation it'd be better for Britain.

Your bet would be wrong. If the data showed exit was superior, I'd hope the government went for it. I am entirely comfortable with the government making decisions I don't like; I'm American and am used it it.

But "the data" can show no such thing. As I said, it can be better for some and worse for others.

There are always winners and losers when decisions are made.

If there's an authority which can deem an election decision as "uneducated" and "harmful" then why have voting at all?

Why not just leave major decisions to a committee, if we're going to pick and choose which elections are decided "correctly."

> Why not just leave major decisions to a committee

We do this in the US, but the committee is formed of three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. People vote for representatives. Representatives enact legislation or executive orders. Those legislation or executive orders can be challenged by our judicial branch and thrown out, regardless of the will of the people and their representatives (see: same sex marriage, abortion, asking people if they're citizens on our census, blocking immigration from countries based on religion, laws that bring about voter suppression). Works well, checks and balances and all that.

Apocryphal quote.

https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest...

Wowzers

Reply on news.ycombinator.com