Hacker News Reader

Comment by yxhuvud | Hacker News Reader

A couple of years before we had an election about what side to drive on. The right side actually lost the election. The politicians promptly (and legally) ignored it and went ahead anyhow. And that is a good thing.

View on HN

Why have an election if there is no intention to respect the outcome?

So you don't end up with a Brexit situation on your hands.

Also a referendum that wasn't legally binding, oh well, we banned guns so had to find another way to shoot ourselves in the foot

Some referendums (most?) are advisory rather than directly legally binding. The intention of the lawmaker in situations like these could be e.g “there is a huge economic gain from driving on the same side as Norway, Sweden and Denmark, but if there is a massive opposition perhaps we can’t do it.” People are also prone to prefer the status quo , something which should perhaps be accounted for in decisions that will affect people many generations into the future.

Denmark also drove on the Left. They switched at the same time. I was there two weeks before it happened, but I was only 15 months old at the time.

All of the issues people that Direct Democracy has, or people perceive it to have. And presumably, since he said legally, there are rules they have to follow to not agree with the election.

That being said, like you I am curious for more details! It does seem a little strange on the face of it.

The outcome of an election is representation in parliament - which was clearly respected. Elections aren't a popularity vote.

That's a seriously fantastic point.

I think most voters in democratic systems conflate the two and miss this in it's entirety.

Yeah, Sweden has referendums, and we do one every 1-3 decades, but they're only "advisory".

Power rests 100% with parliament.

You ask "why?". It's a good question. The system is hard to defend logically, but it is respected nonetheless.

Look at the years-long Brexit saga for a good reason.

It's naive to assume referendums are inherently more democratic.

The Brexit situation is one good example why. They posed the wrong question and arrived at an answer the majority of both the voters and the parliament are already deeply unhappy with...

If I wanted to grab power and rule as a dictator, I would hold referendums every month. You just wouldn't like the questions or the rules...

Strictly speaking though, UK also only have advisory referendums. If parliament wanted to they could just ignore Brexit. Politically impossible even if legal, though.

The British parliament seems to be ignoring Brexit just fine, it's just that only the prime minister can stop it.

> It's naive to assume referendums are inherently more democratic.

I think they're more democratic, pretty much by definition.

The point you're making is that they're not good.

Democracy is not the dictatorship of the majority. All successful democratic constitutions limit what "a majority" can decide on.

To enhance democracy, referendums need certain precise conditions, which are hard or impractical to achieve. For example: Who decides what goes on the ballot?

What do you do if too many issues make it on the ballot, such that the voters and the election staff (or volunteers in most cases) get exhausted and can't effectively participate? How should campaign financing be controlled? How are democratic norms enforced against referendums if necessary?

Another interesting issue arises when voters decide on the rights of those who are not allowed to vote. Mostly immigrants today. But guess how Switzerland became the last democratic country in Western Europe to get full voting rights for women...

Looks like Sweden has never held a binding referendum. [1]

Firstly, the goal of a non-binding referendum is to gather public opinion.

Secondly, the outcome of the referendum was respected for 13 years.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Sweden#

My understanding of this from older relatives was that question divided within the parties of the Parlament. This is usually solved in Sweden by postpone until every party sorts out there own standing. However, if that isn’t successful we have a advisory referendum that commits to nothing but will break some party deadlocks.

> And that is a good thing.

Curious - why is Left Hand Traffic better than Right Hand Traffic?

I believe the parent post is saying that right-hand is better, but I'm curious on the question in either direction.

I assume you mean worse. Driving on the left was worse because the steering wheel was also on the left, reducing visibility. For some reason Swedish car manufacturers in the 60s, which was a big industry, didn't produce cars with the steering wheel on the right.

It's not intrinsically better, it's just a convention, but it helps if everyone operates to the same standard for obvious reasons. Since neighbouring countries drove on the right, it was better to adopt the same standard. This was not an issue for islands such as the UK and Japan with no direct road links to neighbours, therefore they still drive on the left. Originally, before cars, the nobility rode their horses on the left to defend against oncoming traffic since they held their swords in their right hand. For that reason, peasants travelled on the right for safety. After the French Revolution it was prudent for the nobility to blend in, hence all traffic began to travel on the right which was then spread by the French empire.

Side doesn't matter in itself, but all our neighbours drove on the right side, which in itself is a good enough reason to switch.

There were (are) roads that wound across the Norwegian border and back again ....

why is it a good thing? driving on the left is better

Utterly marginally, and 80% of the world drives on the right now. Driving on the left is going to lose eventually.

I'm pretty sure that the last country to change what side of the road it drives on decided to switch to driving on the left ....

No, because India drives on the Left. That's a sixth of the world's population just in that country alone. Then Japan, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, etc.

just cause more people do it doesn't mean its better. My original question was trying to understand the reasoning behind the claim that right side is better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com