@lnxw48a1 @moonman Most political systems have *some* limit to what they allow in the agendas of their political participants. It probably *does* promote stability, in that it shapes public discourse toward productive discussion.
Whether it's moral or not depends on one's priorities, and what the political climate is. Supressing speech and opinion works until it doesn't.
As Hong Kong has no constitutional way of leaving China, arguing for in LegCo won't do any good. But this to me is an argument *against* banning participants having it on their agenda.
I don't she or her partu would push for it directly in LegCo, partly also just like the Swedish Social Democrats didn't act on their republicanism even during their unbroken decades of rule -- there simply wasn't any convincing popular support for it.
@yukiame @mangeurdenuage @roka @lain @sarcasmkid Mandatory voting doesn't get people engaged. In fact, it would put people off it more than they are already if they aren't voting. Why don't you see that? Mandatory voting means you are forced to turn up on voting day and cast a vote of some sort. It doesn't mean you believe in it, that you are engaged and that your vote even counts. This is the easiest option... it would mean that politicians are let off from having to convince us to vote, to engage with us. They already know we will anyway so why put in the effort to get us to turn up on election day?
@hardbass2k8 @sarcasmkid I think it's pretty clear he meant oil exports as income for the economy. All of modern civilization is dependent on oil as input.
It really solves nothing. Mandatory voting means you get *less* information about what the populous wants, because you don't even know if they can be bothered to vote.
And yes, you force those the least interested in submitting an informed vote to be the major power in the election (if your usual attendance is < 50%).
The trouble with LD in general is that it makes a secret ballot basically impossible. The Cardano people claim to have solved it, but I haven't looked into the technicals yet.
@mattcropp If you look at e.g. https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=5dkWIZ2JLsY , their model is "you log onto the Direct Democratic Party website and vote", so now that party would have a complete record of the opinions of every voter in their constituency, personally identified.
But apart from the secrecy, direct democracy on every single issue, with the ability to delegate your decision to someone you believe will vote according to your will, with the chance to change delegate at every time, and maybe even setting different delegates for different policy areas ... that's a very appealing model.
@mattcropp The problem with direct democracy is the people can't be bothered to stay informed. The problem with representative democracy is that you have low resolution on opinion clusters and you have an election cycle.
Liquid democracy solves both, but there's one problem with direct democracy it doesn't solve: representative democracy allows deals and sticking to them. Some people think deals are bad, but I don't, they're part of the oil of the machinery.
Ok, this Google Vote talk on Liquid Democracy gets into rather technical issues after the introduction to LD in general, because they allow delegates to not vote, and allow you to rank delegates so you have a backup if your primary delegate doesn't vote.
@tomey @sim @mangeurdenuage @roka @yukiame @sarcasmkid Just like any other government fee, I suppose. If you accumulate enough debt, you can probably have your property seized by the bailiff.
Alternatively, one could just ban youth from participating when they have inconvenient opinions.
> "If a person advocates or promotes self-determination or independence by any means, he or she cannot possibly uphold the Basic Law or fulfil his or her duties as a legislator,"