Comment by hagbard_c
1 day ago
In that case the down-voters could have replied with something like that instead of knee-jerk-pressing that down-vote arrow in an attempt to get rid of a dissenting opinion. I would have responded by pointing out that the repeated attempts at pushing through laws which are clearly unwanted by the voting public has no stabilising effect and only undermines the trust in the legislative process. That my argument of 'they can try as often as they wish because they only have to win once while we have to win every time' is not simplistic but realistic.
I would be interested to hear your reasoning behind that statement by the way, in what way is it 'simplistic'? Why should it be acceptable for politicos to keep on attempting to push through unwanted laws while it is clearly not allowed for e.g. commercial entities to keep on pestering you with unwanted offers? Here's the very same EU on the subject [1]:
Persistent unwanted offers
Under EU law, companies may not make persistent and unwanted offers to you by telephone, fax, e mail or any other media suitable for distance selling.
I propose a similar law for politicos:
Persistent unwanted law proposals
Under EU law, politicians may not make persistent attempts to push through law proposals which have been voted down several times before.
The law text needs to make clear that it is not allowed to keep on trying to push through essentially identical law proposals which have been voted down by $X sessions of the EU parliament. After having been voted down $X times there is a mandatory moratorium of $Y years before a similar law can be brought up to the vote again.
[1] https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...
> Why should it be acceptable for politicos to keep on attempting to push through unwanted laws
Think about what would happen if it was somehow prohibited to propose “sufficiently similar” laws again. Opposing parties would start gaming that rule by proposing the weakest flawed version possible for a law, so that it is rejected, which will in consequence prevent a better version of it from being admissible for consideration. Factions being in the majority will proactively propose and reject some laws just in case that, in the next legislative period, other factions gain majority. Similarly, minority factions will be discouraged from even proposing any laws, for fear of canceling future chances when they are rejected. Furthermore, who will judge what is “similar enough” to fall under the rule? Politicians will just start playing games to make it just dissimilar enough to go through.
Sometimes you downvote things because they are so obviously amiss that they aren’t even worth discussing. I understand that it can be frustrating if you don’t think they are amiss, but that’s just how it is.
Well, no, that is not a realistic scenario. If a law like the one I propose was in place it would be up to the politicos to make sure their law proposals would be up to snuff before they put them up for a vote in the knowledge that they could not keep on adjusting a line here, changing a word there to finally have it pass. If the proposed law is relatively uncontroversial it will pass the vote. If it is totally abysmal it won't pass. If it is debatable it will be debated. That is the political process as it was meant to be: come up with solutions to problems.
The whole spiel about 'majority' and 'minority' factions is not relevant here, what matters is whether the laws they propose stand a chance of gaining enough votes to pass. Assuming that the parliament is representative of the voter base - and that is a very big assumption - it can be stated that laws which are voted down are voted down because the people - the dèmos in other words - don't want those laws to be passed.
Do you think it is a good thing to have more laws on the books? If so I do not agree. I'd rather have fewer laws, the fewer the better. Regulate those things which need to be regulated, leave the rest to the people. It is up to the people to decide what needs to be regulated, not to those who have based their careers around regulation. There's a big conflict of interest between the needs of the former and those of the latter which has been tipped towards those of the latter in heavily bureaucratic institutions like the EU. I'd like to see the balance tip more towards the needs of the people, not the bureaucrats.