Re:Pelosi defends stock trading by lawmakers. ‘We are a free...
by dragonwriter on Thursday December 16, 2021 @09:50PM
(#29587095)
> You make it sound like that is a long time.
It is compared to the claim that “a large margin is safe for a few months”.
> In Britain, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011 makes it unlikely there will be many elections held at less than 5 years.
Yes, but it assures that 100% of seats will be elected in 5 years, and that no majority is safe for longer than that and none takes more than a majority of the elections in that time to overturn.
> The evidence is overwhelming that the current majority is, at all times, ignorant, irrational, biased, bigoted and impulsive
No, the evidence is that effectively representative, responsive democracies produce the best results for their people. The US mostly fails on effective representation, and the proposed change would compound that by making it also fail on responsiveness.
> Big changes should come from majorities that manage to survive for several years.
Sure, maybe, that's why procedures that require long (e.g., multistage, with legally or practically mandatory delays) process for major changes arguably make sense.
But rendering any substantial majority effectively immune to change once established defeats the purpose of that. If the argument is correct at all, it is that big changes should come from legislative majorities that survive for an extended time because they represent a durable majority in the electorate.
It is compared to the claim that “a large margin is safe for a few months”.
> In Britain, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011 makes it unlikely there will be many elections held at less than 5 years.
Yes, but it assures that 100% of seats will be elected in 5 years, and that no majority is safe for longer than that and none takes more than a majority of the elections in that time to overturn.
> The evidence is overwhelming that the current majority is, at all times, ignorant, irrational, biased, bigoted and impulsive
No, the evidence is that effectively representative, responsive democracies produce the best results for their people. The US mostly fails on effective representation, and the proposed change would compound that by making it also fail on responsiveness.
> Big changes should come from majorities that manage to survive for several years.
Sure, maybe, that's why procedures that require long (e.g., multistage, with legally or practically mandatory delays) process for major changes arguably make sense.
But rendering any substantial majority effectively immune to change once established defeats the purpose of that. If the argument is correct at all, it is that big changes should come from legislative majorities that survive for an extended time because they represent a durable majority in the electorate.