Hacker News Reader

Comment by roamerz | Hacker News Reader

Right or wrong how can one argue against Democracy (the will of the people)? It’s a basic tenant to freedom.

History is replete with pure democracy leading to tyranny. Beyond just Brexit, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the 'majority' could vote to nullify constitutional checks to the power of a president, to term length, to guarantees on the protection of individual rights and freedoms, etc. Of course any such votes are deemed to be in the interest of the 'people'. The ancients and the US at its founding were wise enough to mix democracy, the at the moment will of the people, with various checks, balances and buffers. The US seems to be moving to more and more pure democracy. In my humble opinion this is dangerous, a slippery slope, a camel's nose under the tent, etc.

The founders were indeed wise in requiring 2/3 to amend the constitution as well as establishing the electoral college in lieu of popular vote. What they failed at in my opinion is not having any criminal penalties for anyone including politicians and judges for violating the constitution.

I disagree on the Electoral College -- it's a system designed so that votes aren't equal in value. If you live in California, your presidential vote is worth less than a vote in Wyoming[0]. Similarly, the cap on the size of the House of Representatives also means that larger states will generally see less representation per capita than smaller states. (Note: I'm leaving the Senate out, given that it's designed to assign two votes per state without regard to population).

A referendum is great at giving legislators or executives a priority -- my home state of New Jersey has been working on marijuana legalization for years, but it's largely stalled in the statehouse. The 2020 election featured a ballot question on legalization, and the overwhelming "yes" (more than 2/3 of the electorate supports the move) helped kick off another round of legislation (that, in a sadly predictable pattern, seems to be stuck once again).

[0] https://www.axios.com/electoral-college-by-vote-per-capita-4...

Here in Florida, we got so tired of the stalling that we wrote medical marijuana into a 2016 constitutional amendment initiative, since that's the only way to get something approaching a law without legislative cooperation.

I would think that would have just encouraged the "creative" interpretations of the constitution in use now to justify themselves

The original system for the Electoral College (where some electors from a state could vote differently than others) made sense. So did having the vice president be the runner up (before the 14th Amendment) - this is why the VP getting the ability to break ties in the senate made more sense too.

The current EC implementation is terrible however. Small states already get massive overrepresentation in the Senate, they don't need a second system to weigh in their favor.

I very much want to see one person, one vote, with approval voting (i.e. pick ALL the people you're happy to see being president, the winner gets the job) being used for presidential elections.

It’s rarely a good idea for everyone’s freedom to blindly follow the will of the majority.

Too often minorities are suppressed.

Plus, voters are terrible at understanding the long-term implications of what they think they want.

The last sentence sounds like many politicians in my state if Oregon. Voters are to dumb to be able to vote. Point in case the voters of Oregon have multiple times voted (overwhelmingly) to not issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. The legislature this year voted to give illegal aliens driver’s licenses. Is this not a prime example of tyranny?

It’s a prime example of a republic instead of a true democracy.

Tyranny would be if you couldn’t vote them out of office.

I do agree with that however if you truly represent the citizens why would you vote for something that is demonstrably contrary to their will? Granted they probably are counting on that by election time this particular vote may be forgotten or outweighed by other factors. Probably more disingenuous than tyrannical but still..

This question has been discussed for hundreds of years.

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”—Edmund Burke

> Point in case the voters of Oregon have multiple times voted to not issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.

I don't understand why. Licensed or not, they're going to drive. If they're in the country illegally, they're not gonna care they're driving illegally. Isn't it safer for others on the road if they're made to take the appropriate tests and have insurance like everyone else? If you're involved in an accident with an undocumented person, isn't it better to be able to get their insurance information?

In this case, I think the voters really are being dumb. Or they're being fed a pack of lies, such as getting driver's licenses will make undocumented aliens eligible for other benefits.

Maybe these legislators are able to see both sides of the issue and believe that giving driver's licenses will be a net benefit to their constituents. Even if those constituents don't realize it themselves.

The will of the people isn’t static, in 2012 Oregon voters rejected marijuana legalization, only to approve it in 2014. Is it your position that once there is a referendum it can’t be revisited by the legislature at a later date? The last driver’s license initiate was voted on six years ago.

Also, there’s nothing stopping another initiative campaign to repeal the law. If the people voted it repeal it, it would be repealed. That doesn’t sound like tyranny at all.

I think it may be argued that holding referendums is not necessarily democratic. Referendums are not historically part of the UK electoral system. There have only ever been three UK wide referendums, two on Europe and one on the electoral system. We have none of the safeguards, of super-majorities for instance, that some countries have.

It could be argued that having failed to get your own way in the established electoral system, inventing a new unstoppable electoral system is undemocratic.

Minor nitpick: tenet, not tenant.

Otherwise, agreed :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com