|
Germany took in millions of people from the former USSR during the 90s. These perfidious Slavs have now multiplied and spread their Russian agenda. The country is like 99% Slav by weight now.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 12:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:Russia saved us during ww2, we never forgot that. This makes sense. Russia today is just like it was back then. Oh wait...
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 12:36
|
|
|
On the 51% vs 49% thing, has anyone ever suggested probabilistic democracy? Then the 49% would get their way 49% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
Blue Star Error posted:On the 51% vs 49% thing, has anyone ever suggested probabilistic democracy? Then the 49% would get their way 49% of the time. How would that work in practice? You poll every issue, than roll a 100-sided dice to determine if it gets implemented?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Blue Star Error posted:On the 51% vs 49% thing, has anyone ever suggested probabilistic democracy? Then the 49% would get their way 49% of the time. You clearly have not played enough RPGs if you think this would end well. 5% of people have voted to make Klingon the official language across Europe... It crits!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:How would that work in practice? You poll every issue, than roll a 100-sided dice to determine if it gets implemented? After a vote in whatever flavour democracy you have, direct or representative or whatever, the outcome of a vote is randomly chosen using probabilities from ratios of votes cast for each outcome. So for example Theresa May would have had a 64.8% chance of being Maidenhead's MP while Lord Buckethead would have had a 0.4% chance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
BioMe posted:You clearly have not played enough RPGs if you think this would end well. 5% of people have voted to make Klingon the official language across Europe... It crits! Well under current systems Europe's beleaguered Klingon minority aren't getting any of their needs met. A 5% chance seems fair.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
How often would you roll for results? A campaign to institute Full Communism Now could probably manage a 1% vote roll every day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
Every day, we roll the loaded dice on the "kill all muzzies" referendum and on the "kill whitey" referendum. I see no societal issues exploding from this at all. I also fully expect taxes to drop within the first week while expenses skyrocket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Every day, we roll the loaded dice on the "kill all muzzies" referendum and on the "kill whitey" referendum. I see no societal issues exploding from this at all. I guess we would get chaos democracy  and a lesson in why we have representative democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Every day, we roll the loaded dice on the "kill all muzzies" referendum and on the "kill whitey" referendum. I see no societal issues exploding from this at all. Why would deciding the outcomes of elections probabilistically suddenly entail having referendums on genocide every single day?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
Blue Star Error posted:Why would deciding the outcomes of elections probabilistically suddenly entail having referendums on genocide every single day? Who's deciding what referendums we're having and how are they being chosen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:Who's deciding what referendums we're having and how are they being chosen? Its not relevant. Who decides it now based on a winner takes all voting system? All my suggestion is is an alternative way to decide the outcome of a vote, you could implement it in any system of democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I understand why trust in the US is falling, but I'll never understand why Germany is so relatively close to Russia. In spite of, you know, loving Russia. Well, historically, "Germany" and Russia always got along well, as long as Poland is on the map that is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
Blue Star Error posted:Its not relevant. Who decides it now based on a winner takes all voting system? All my suggestion is is an alternative way to decide the outcome of a vote, you could implement it in any system of democracy. And when we roll a 13 and elect say Donal... Some Crazy Person as whatever flavor of executive, they can call a referendum on whatever the heck they want. Your idea can get some pretty crazy people in positions of power than FPTP will filter out (there IS worse than trump).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:Russia saved us during ww2, we never forgot that. Russia WHAT?? Were you not taught the critical part of that story where, in the process of said 'liberation', Russian soldiers raped millions of German women and looted everything that wasn't nailed down? And most things that were nailed down, actually. Expulsed every ethnic German who lived east of the Oder/Neisse-line from their homes forever, etc.? I guess someone just found the exact sentence that triggers me, because HOLY poo poo We owe the Russians NOTHING.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
Well you do maybe owe them a little bit because of the whole invading and wrecking their country thing. But then, you owe a lot of people for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
Saying "Theresa May would have a 60% chance of being a PM in the probabilistic model" belies a complete misunderstanding of how parliamentary systems work. Governments are secured based on the ability to gain the confidence of the assembly, not by a popular vote like in presidential systems, so the only way it could work would be to have probabilistic selection of each single MP candidate, and even that would only work in FPTP systems, and even then I can only imagine what havoc it would wreak on voter motivation, party accountability and election predictability if all the mandates where parties are actually competitive with each other, and thus forced to engage with voters, were suddenly decided by a glorified coin flip.
steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jan 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Well you do maybe owe them a little bit because of the whole invading and wrecking their country thing. But then, you owe a lot of people for that. Nazi war crimes are not generally seen as a controversial subject where 'the jury is still out', though. The Holocaust, the conduct of the German side during the war in the east, that's all very well documented and part of the general historical consensus, across almost the entire political spectrum. But actually having a German say that the Russians 'saved us'?? I didn't even know there were real people who held that opinion!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
Gimmick Account posted:Nazi war crimes are not generally seen as a controversial subject where 'the jury is still out', though. The Holocaust, the conduct of the German side during the war in the east, that's all very well documented and part of the general historical consensus, across almost the entire political spectrum. But actually having a German say that the Russians 'saved us'?? I didn't even know there were real people who held that opinion! One could argue that they saved everybody else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Gimmick Account posted:Nazi war crimes are not generally seen as a controversial subject where 'the jury is still out', though. The Holocaust, the conduct of the German side during the war in the east, that's all very well documented and part of the general historical consensus, across almost the entire political spectrum. But actually having a German say that the Russians 'saved us'?? I didn't even know there were real people who held that opinion! I seriously just assumed he was from Poland or something because his post made no sense coming from a German.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
AndreTheGiantBoned posted:One could argue that they saved everybody else. One could, and then Goa Tse-Tung's post would have flown under my radar entirely. As it stands, though, the actual post's sentiment is incomprehensible to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:And when we roll a 13 and elect say Donal... Some Crazy Person as whatever flavor of executive, they can call a referendum on whatever the heck they want. Why would it be any different to now? If anything it would be less likely for a government to successfully call a referendum as it would have to pass through probability parliament first rather than just having a majority of MPs. A referendum issue with 51% MP support and 51% public support would have ~25% chance of passing, rather than 100% as it is now. steinrokkan posted:Saying "Theresa May would have a 60% chance of being a PM in the probabilistic model" belies a complete misunderstanding of how parliamentary systems work. Governments are secured based on the ability to gain the confidence of the assembly, not by a popular vote like in presidential systems, so the only way it could work would be to have probabilistic selection of each single MP candidate, and even that would only work in FPTP systems, and even then I can only imagine what havoc it would wreak on voter motivation, party accountability and election predictability if all the mandates where parties are actually competitive with each other, and thus forced to engage with voters, were suddenly decided by a glorified coin flip. I said MP of Maidenhead, not Prime Minister. I know how my country works thanks. I'm not even saying its a good idea, its simply a solution to the tyranny of the majority problem, whether it would introduce more problems than it solves is obviously up for discussion. As it stands a sizeable ideological minority gets nothing, wouldn't flipping coins be a fairer reflection of a divided electorate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 06:55
|
|
|
The German mixed member system is good if you want to represent a variety of minorities, regions and minority opinions. It elects the whole assembly twice, first in FPTP districts, then in larger proportional ones and parties / candidates get to keep the number of mandates from either that is the most beneficial to them, basically. That means there is no fixed number of MPs - if there is a lack of congruence between national and regional results, it leads to more people in the parliament to reflect both sides. In essence, you can vote for a local politician representing your community / minority concerns on the FPTP level, and for a larger party with aligned ideology on the national level. If your favorite individual candidate wins in your community, he gets to keep his seat even if he gained very few votes nationally, and if your preferred large party fails to win too many FPTP districts because it consistently places at a near second place, it still gets many mandates from the proportional part of the system. Meanwhile you can vote out corrupt individual politicians by voting against them in FPTP districts, but voting for their parties in the proportional election, that way the party still gets its mandate, but will most likely occupy it by somebody else from a party list. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Jan 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 08:47
|
|
|
Gimmick Account posted:One could, and then Goa Tse-Tung's post would have flown under my radar entirely. As it stands, though, the actual post's sentiment is incomprehensible to me. I am German tho? And you are not. edit: claiming the Russian army didnt beat the German army is insane imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 09:38
|
|
|
Blue Star Error posted:Why would it be any different to now? If anything it would be less likely for a government to successfully call a referendum as it would have to pass through probability parliament first rather than just having a majority of MPs. A referendum issue with 51% MP support and 51% public support would have ~25% chance of passing, rather than 100% as it is now. I mean, some ideas should absolutely have 0% chance of passing, and others should have 100% chance of passing. What are you going to do every year when the budget gets voted? What about nationalisations? What if some frivolous idiot puts up a petty vote on a non-issue? The problem with a tyranny of the majority is one especially in majoritarian democracies like the UK or the USA. (incidentally many of them are British ex-colonies lol). Meanwhile in a consensus democracy, you are often institutionally required o bargain and consult the middle field. Obviously this is a sliding scale rather than a strict division, but I don't see why we can't apply rules for lobbying etc. for schools, minorities and so on, rather than big businesses. Belgium constitutionally entrenched protection for the Flemish minority in Brussels and for the Walloon community in Belgium as a whole; why couldn't other countries do the same for whichever relevant minority there is? If you're going to do a radical change to the way your country is run, you should start there rather than coin flips EDIT: Unless I seriously misremember, some Middle Eastern countries like Iran constitutionally protect Christians by ensuring they always have some seats in their parliament. Wouldn't solutions like these be better than some probability democracy? EDIT 2: gently caress it, everyone should just read Patterns of Democracy (2012, 2nd ed.) by Arend Lijphart Deltasquid fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Jan 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 10:30
|
|
|
Gimmick Account posted:Nazi war crimes are not generally seen as a controversial subject where 'the jury is still out', though. The Holocaust, the conduct of the German side during the war in the east, that's all very well documented and part of the general historical consensus, across almost the entire political spectrum. But actually having a German say that the Russians 'saved us'?? I didn't even know there were real people who held that opinion! They saved the rest of us from you though
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
While I don't have a strong opinion either way WRT the representative vs direct vs other democracy debate that's been going on ITT, you lot who are all "well what about a referendum on killing the 49%" or whatever horror story you've cooked up are either being dumb or disingenious as poo poo, because you're basically saying that it's impossible to have constitutional checks and balances under direct democracy which is obviously not the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 10:50
|
|
|
The problem is that in a direct democracy you have the argument "well it's the will of the people!!" to disregard these checks and balances, while in a representative democracy you can completely wreck a fool who tries to break the rules without telling 51% of the population directly that what they did was wrong. People are already disregarding constitutions with referenda as it is, and that's a chance event rather than a daily occurrence. EDIT: also in a representative democracy you can blame a specific individual for transgressions against checks and balances. How do you hold 50% of the population accountable for breaking it if they just don't give a gently caress? Deltasquid fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Jan 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 10:54
|
|
|
Gimmick Account posted:Nazi war crimes are not generally seen as a controversial subject where 'the jury is still out', though. The Holocaust, the conduct of the German side during the war in the east, that's all very well documented and part of the general historical consensus, across almost the entire political spectrum. But actually having a German say that the Russians 'saved us'?? I didn't even know there were real people who held that opinion! Though in hindsight having half the country fall under Soviet rule was probably no better. Collateral Damage fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Jan 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 10:55
|
|
|
Blue Star Error posted:Why would it be any different to now? If anything it would be less likely for a government to successfully call a referendum as it would have to pass through probability parliament first rather than just having a majority of MPs. A referendum issue with 51% MP support and 51% public support would have ~25% chance of passing, rather than 100% as it is now. I'm the parliament that is trying to pass a school funding bill for 20 years in a row, but is rolling a 1 each legislature period. Our children are dying, nobody knows how to read anymore, help
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 11:00
|
|
|
Georgy Zhukov do it again!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 11:03
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Collateral Damage posted:Though in hindsight having half the country fall under Soviet rule was probably no better. I'm starting to think this Stalin fellow isn't entirely on the level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 11:08
|
|
|
Let's just have a referendum about abrogating whatever constitutional check or balance blocked our previous referendum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 11:10
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:These "who cares about non-voters" attitudes are pretty much democracy_abolishing_itself.txt and I always find it extremely hilarious when people don't seem to grasp this simple concept: a citizen who doesn't feel like they have a stake or voice in the system will not support the system. A bit late but what is the source of this graph? I'd like to cite it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 13:09
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:I assume he means the Russians saved Germany from the nazi party. On the other hand, I have the pet theory that if Hitler hadn't been such a madman and hadn't brought such ruin to his country, the Germans would have never had the chance to thoroughly reform and shun Nazism as a nation (right, right, there are neo-nazis, but they are a fringe minority. People in the new extreme right wing party are shouted down and accused of being a bunch of morons and nazis). I think that if someone like Stauffenberg had succeeded with his bomb plot and Germany had surrendered before total defeat, that we would have a significant proportion of the population defending the nation's course of action. You see this in other countries that went through dictatorships like Italy, Spain, and Portugal, where conservative people will talk about the merits of the former dictatorship. AndreTheGiantBoned fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Jan 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 13:40
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:I assume he means the Russians saved Germany from the nazi party. Do you seriously think the DDR's crimes against its populace have any comparison to Nazi Germany's? Is that a serious, honest opinion? Because I think that the German Jewish, LGBT, Roma, etc. communities might have a somewhat different opinion. Deltasquid posted:The problem is that in a direct democracy you have the argument "well it's the will of the people!!" to disregard these checks and balances, while in a representative democracy you can completely wreck a fool who tries to break the rules without telling 51% of the population directly that what they did was wrong. People are already disregarding constitutions with referenda as it is, and that's a chance event rather than a daily occurrence. A democracy that does not respect individual rights is not a democracy. Your perception of direct democracy is indistinguishable from anarchy/mob rule. Which I could see how you'd think that, but that's probably not the conception of direct democracy others have in this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 14:13
|
|
|
The Russians for all their many faults did at least stamp out any possibility of a Prussian resurgence post-WW2, they deserve credit for that. Northern Germans and whats left of the Prussians are insufferably self-righteous and boring as it is. A timeline where the junkers didn't get curbstomped twice in the C20th would result in them being even more unbearable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:A democracy that does not respect individual rights is not a democracy. Your perception of direct democracy is indistinguishable from anarchy/mob rule. Which I could see how you'd think that, but that's probably not the conception of direct democracy others have in this discussion. I'm having difficulty thinking of a conception of direct democracy without any sort of representatives whatsoever, that doesn't devolve into de facto popularity contests/mob rule. Assuming you have individual rights that are protected, who decides upon those? A class of elites, or the majority? If the latter, how is it indistinguishable from mob rule? If the former, is it really a direct democracy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Blut posted:The Russians for all their many faults did at least stamp out any possibility of a Prussian resurgence post-WW2, they deserve credit for that. Northern Germans and whats left of the Prussians are insufferably self-righteous and boring as it is. A timeline where the junkers didn't get curbstomped twice in the C20th would result in them being even more unbearable. The DDR was rather better (not perfect, but better) about doing denazification compared to the bundesrepublik too, if I recall correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 15:29
|
|
