|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 01 2018 12:54 Hollow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2018 03:54 r.Evo wrote:
however once you add more and more complexity to any system it will eventually behave more and more chaotic. In 2008 there were 100 million (active) FB accounts worldwide, in 2010 there were 482 million. Now we're at 2 billion of them, 1/4th of the people living on earth. Even with a decent chunk of those being non-human that's a lot of people who are influencing each other. This is backward. We aren't adding more complexity to the system, there's deviance/disorder/noise ("chaos") introduced which then leads to increasing complexity (if the system hasn't collapse from too much deviance/disorder/noise).
Complexity in this context stems from mostly two values:
1) amount of individual agents and 2) amount of connections between individual agents.
A system that is low on at least one of these counts (think a thousand agents connected in a line where each can only influence the next - e.g. a processor) will act very orderly and deterministic. A system that is high on both of them begins to act complex and shows emergent behavior (e.g. our brain, our ecosystem or an anthive), usually in a rather stable balance that slowly evolved over time.
What social media does at its core is add both more agents (there are more people talking "in the same room") and more connections (each agent is connected with more other agents). Thus overall complexity is increased. If we increase complexity in a balanced system we will see more and more chaotic and unpredictable emergent behavior, no matter the type system.
This process creates deviance/noise/disorder simply by being more complex. This is essentially how you can describe what introducing an invasive species to an ecosystem does: All we can predict is that it will change the existing balance into something more complex in ways we can't predict - the system behaves more chaotic in nature until a new balance is found.
If we feel like social media creates more and more chaotic behavior that no one would have been able to predict a bit earlier then that is the effect we're witnessing - whether it be cat memes, kids eating tide pods for fun or previously unthinkable extremists being elected into parliaments.
Show nested quote +Any tool that can be used by pretty much anyone for whatever purpose they see fit has such crazy potential that we should at least show it the respect it deserves. In the meantime we all got comfortable with using it like five year olds who found daddy's workshop. The first step to "giving it the respect it deserves" is to go beyond the naive conception that a medium is "a tool" -- that we somehow shape it while it doesn't shape us. What we produce and use produces us in return: retroaction/recursion and auto-poesis are defining factors of complex, living systems.
I don't see how you disagree with me here. It's a tool in the sense that it isn't somehow inherently evil or bad, it's up to use how we choose to use it. Of course introducing a new tool shapes us in return, from the invention of the wheel to atom bombs. If you felt like that portion is not included in the descriptor "tool" then you're entirely accurate though, I can give you that.
|
Today is the niche parlementaire of the FI (left), i.e. a special day where they can propose laws of their own (usually the parliamentarian agenda is dictated by the government). With those laws the FI proposes the following 5 things:
(1) Calling for a referendum on the CETA.
(2) Putting the right to water in the Constitution as an “inalienable right”.
(3) Creating a receipt after each police identity check to prevent/fight racial profiling.
(4) Recognizing as occupational diseases psychic troubles stemming from burn-ourts.
(5) Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide for people suffering from incurable diseases.
Some notes:
(2) The text also defines the water as a “common good of manking” and prescribes a public monopoly for water supply and sanitation, on a not-for-profit basis. There would be a minimal threshold of consumption under which water would be free.
(3) Young males perceived as “Arabs” or “Blacks” are 20 times more likely to be controlled than the rest of the population. Time and time again, numerous studies have proved the reality of contrôles au faciès [racial profiling] in identity checks. The French State has been condamned for “discriminatory controls” in 2016 by our highest judicial instance. During the trial, the State defended itself saying, in substance: “I'm looking for undocumented strangers, it is only natural that I control Arabs and Blacks more!” (I'm not even kidding.) — Hollande had promised to implement those receipts (they were in his 2012 program), but naturally it was quickly buried afterwards to content our deeply conservative police unions (which mostly deny racism and racial profiling). Such laws would be “anti-cops” and a mark of distrust blablabla.
The funny thing is that the law is very modest: it asks only for an experimentation of the receipt in voluntary territories. Yet it will still be refused!
(4) It is estimated that more than 400 000 people suffer from a burn-out each year in France, and our country is a champion when it comes to consuming antidepressants or anxiety-relieving drugs. Heaven knows how many people commit suicide each year due to insane pressure in their jobs. The law would make it so that companies (instead of the collectivity) would pay for their terrible management.
The FI apparently commanded a poll to test the approval of those measures. For some reason, they asked people if they knew what the CETA was and if they were for it, not if they wanted a referendum on it. But other proposals get on average 60 to 80% support in the population (and would be majority regardless of the political proximity).
Naturally, due to the sectarianism of the majority, which refuses on principle all texts from other groups, none of these laws will pass.
|
On February 01 2018 18:23 TheDwf wrote:Today is the niche parlementaire of the FI (left), i.e. a special day where they can propose laws of their own (usually the parliamentarian agenda is dictated by the government). With those laws the FI proposes the following 5 things: (1) Calling for a referendum on the CETA. (2) Putting the right to water in the Constitution as an “inalienable right”. (3) Creating a receipt after each police identity check to prevent/fight racial profiling. (4) Recognizing as occupational diseases psychic troubles stemming from burn-ourts. (5) Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide for people suffering from incurable diseases. Some notes: (2) The text also defines the water as a “common good of manking” and prescribes a public monopoly for water supply and sanitation, on a not-for-profit basis. There would be a minimal threshold of consumption under which water would be free. (3) Young males perceived as “Arabs” or “Blacks” are 20 times more likely to be controlled than the rest of the population. Time and time again, numerous studies have proved the reality of contrôles au faciès [racial profiling] in identity checks. The French State has been condamned for “discriminatory controls” in 2016 by our highest judicial instance. During the trial, the State defended itself saying, in substance: “I'm looking for undocumented strangers, it is only natural that I control Arabs and Blacks more!” (I'm not even kidding.) — Hollande had promised to implement those receipts (they were in his 2012 program), but naturally it was quickly buried afterwards to content our deeply conservative police unions (which mostly deny racism and racial profiling). Such laws would be “anti-cops” and a mark of distrust blablabla. The funny thing is that the law is very modest: it asks only for an experimentation of the receipt in voluntary territories. Yet it will still be refused! (4) It is estimated that more than 400 000 people suffer from a burn-out each year in France, and our country is a champion when it comes to consuming antidepressants or anxiety-relieving drugs. Heaven knows how many people commit suicide each year due to insane pressure in their jobs. The law would make it so that companies (instead of the collectivity) would pay for their terrible management. The FI apparently commanded a poll to test the approval of those measures. For some reason, they asked people if they knew what the CETA was and if they were for it, not if they wanted a referendum on it. But other proposals get on average 60 to 80% support in the population (and would be majority regardless of the political proximity). Naturally, due to the sectarianism of the majority, which refuses on principle all texts from other groups, none of these laws will pass.
(1) is stupid. The rest seem like they could be sensible proposals if worked out correctly.
(4) seems the most controversial and could cause problems, but it seems sensible to treat certain psychological problems caused by stress at work as work-related problems.
Regarding (3), I understand how police unions would oppose, and perhaps the government doesn't want to pick a fight with them right now. Moreover, it would take a lot more work beyond simply handing out receipts for those receipts to actually do anything towards the stated goal. It could also cause problems in that police might be reticent to ask for identities of certain people even when they would otherwise be justified to do so, out of fear of being labelled a racist. Alternatively, it could cause policement to ID check random white citizens at a higher rate to "cancel out" their checks on minorities. This would have the intended effect of equalizing ID checks, but I guess you wouldn't want more ID checks. So how exactly you manage this properly is quite important.
(5) runs into trouble with church groups, but not sure how much power they have in France? In current Spanish government it would never pass.
Finally, (2) makes a lot of sense. However in what manner does it actually do anything to change French policy? It sure is a good statement to make, but how much of the French water reservoir is privately owned? Presumably water management is already a public issue, which does take into account both public and private water needs. So more details are needed as to what would actually change based on (2), or whether it's just a publicity stunt that will have no real repercussions?
|
On February 01 2018 18:23 TheDwf wrote:
(3) Young males perceived as “Arabs” or “Blacks” are 20 times more likely to be controlled than the rest of the population. Time and time again, numerous studies have proved the reality of contrôles au faciès [racial profiling] in identity checks. The French State has been condamned for “discriminatory controls” in 2016 by our highest judicial instance. During the trial, the State defended itself saying, in substance: “I'm looking for undocumented strangers, it is only natural that I control Arabs and Blacks more!” (I'm not even kidding.).
Yes, a truly oppressive use of logic. A white in France is just as likely to be an undocumented foreigner as an arab or a black. Also, I am certain there are statistics somewhere showing that whites in France commit as many crimes as arabs/blacks do, even adjusting for different population size.
|
On February 01 2018 22:13 Karpfen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2018 18:23 TheDwf wrote:
(3) Young males perceived as “Arabs” or “Blacks” are 20 times more likely to be controlled than the rest of the population. Time and time again, numerous studies have proved the reality of contrôles au faciès [racial profiling] in identity checks. The French State has been condamned for “discriminatory controls” in 2016 by our highest judicial instance. During the trial, the State defended itself saying, in substance: “I'm looking for undocumented strangers, it is only natural that I control Arabs and Blacks more!” (I'm not even kidding.). Yes, a truly oppressive use of logic. A white in France is just as likely to be an undocumented foreigner as an arab or a black. Also, I am certain there are statistics somewhere showing that whites in France commit as many crimes as arabs/blacks do, even adjusting for different population size.
Young males are overall disproportionately involved in delinquency, so I am sure that you will have no problem wearing handcuffs just to make everyone in the streets feel safer.
There are no ethnic statistics on crimes.
Racial profiling is disgusting even if you look for undocumented strangers because, you know, a part of the national population happens to be "people of color" and doesn't have to undergo repeatedly humiliating and useless controls (95% of controls give nothing, and there's still a lot of shady stuff in the remaining 5%) just because the State is hunting foreigners. Also it doesn't explain why people underage are controlled since they cannot be expelled anyway, so it's just a bad pretext. The reality is that there is a systemic racist suspicion and a logic of collective punishment applied to people perceived as Arabs or Blacks.
|
The actual question is if the police does this out of experience or if there guidelines that make them do this. The latter is racist and solveable, the former is kinda hard to stop.
I mean, do you want quotas on how many people of ethnicity X a police officer has to control per day?
|
On February 01 2018 12:54 Hollow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2018 03:54 r.Evo wrote:
however once you add more and more complexity to any system it will eventually behave more and more chaotic. In 2008 there were 100 million (active) FB accounts worldwide, in 2010 there were 482 million. Now we're at 2 billion of them, 1/4th of the people living on earth. Even with a decent chunk of those being non-human that's a lot of people who are influencing each other. This is backward. We aren't adding more complexity to the system, there's deviance/disorder/noise ("chaos") introduced which then leads to increasing complexity (if the system hasn't collapse from too much deviance/disorder/noise). Show nested quote +Any tool that can be used by pretty much anyone for whatever purpose they see fit has such crazy potential that we should at least show it the respect it deserves. In the meantime we all got comfortable with using it like five year olds who found daddy's workshop. The first step to "giving it the respect it deserves" is to go beyond the naive conception that a medium is "a tool" -- that we somehow shape it while it doesn't shape us. What we produce and use produces us in return: retroaction/recursion and auto-poesis are defining factors of complex, living systems.
dialectical non-sense. if this was true why have i not started turning into a computer, and why hasn't my computer started turning into me? why haven't my fingertips sprouted keys, and why haven't the mouse grown fingers?
struct man{};
struct tool{};
void use(const man &m,tool &t);
|
On February 01 2018 22:03 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2018 18:23 TheDwf wrote:Today is the niche parlementaire of the FI (left), i.e. a special day where they can propose laws of their own (usually the parliamentarian agenda is dictated by the government). With those laws the FI proposes the following 5 things: (1) Calling for a referendum on the CETA. (2) Putting the right to water in the Constitution as an “inalienable right”. (3) Creating a receipt after each police identity check to prevent/fight racial profiling. (4) Recognizing as occupational diseases psychic troubles stemming from burn-ourts. (5) Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide for people suffering from incurable diseases. Some notes: (2) The text also defines the water as a “common good of manking” and prescribes a public monopoly for water supply and sanitation, on a not-for-profit basis. There would be a minimal threshold of consumption under which water would be free. (3) Young males perceived as “Arabs” or “Blacks” are 20 times more likely to be controlled than the rest of the population. Time and time again, numerous studies have proved the reality of contrôles au faciès [racial profiling] in identity checks. The French State has been condamned for “discriminatory controls” in 2016 by our highest judicial instance. During the trial, the State defended itself saying, in substance: “I'm looking for undocumented strangers, it is only natural that I control Arabs and Blacks more!” (I'm not even kidding.) — Hollande had promised to implement those receipts (they were in his 2012 program), but naturally it was quickly buried afterwards to content our deeply conservative police unions (which mostly deny racism and racial profiling). Such laws would be “anti-cops” and a mark of distrust blablabla. The funny thing is that the law is very modest: it asks only for an experimentation of the receipt in voluntary territories. Yet it will still be refused! (4) It is estimated that more than 400 000 people suffer from a burn-out each year in France, and our country is a champion when it comes to consuming antidepressants or anxiety-relieving drugs. Heaven knows how many people commit suicide each year due to insane pressure in their jobs. The law would make it so that companies (instead of the collectivity) would pay for their terrible management. The FI apparently commanded a poll to test the approval of those measures. For some reason, they asked people if they knew what the CETA was and if they were for it, not if they wanted a referendum on it. But other proposals get on average 60 to 80% support in the population (and would be majority regardless of the political proximity). Naturally, due to the sectarianism of the majority, which refuses on principle all texts from other groups, none of these laws will pass. (1) is stupid. The rest seem like they could be sensible proposals if worked out correctly. (4) seems the most controversial and could cause problems, but it seems sensible to treat certain psychological problems caused by stress at work as work-related problems. Regarding (3), I understand how police unions would oppose, and perhaps the government doesn't want to pick a fight with them right now. Moreover, it would take a lot more work beyond simply handing out receipts for those receipts to actually do anything towards the stated goal. It could also cause problems in that police might be reticent to ask for identities of certain people even when they would otherwise be justified to do so, out of fear of being labelled a racist. Alternatively, it could cause policement to ID check random white citizens at a higher rate to "cancel out" their checks on minorities. This would have the intended effect of equalizing ID checks, but I guess you wouldn't want more ID checks. So how exactly you manage this properly is quite important. (5) runs into trouble with church groups, but not sure how much power they have in France? In current Spanish government it would never pass. Finally, (2) makes a lot of sense. However in what manner does it actually do anything to change French policy? It sure is a good statement to make, but how much of the French water reservoir is privately owned? Presumably water management is already a public issue, which does take into account both public and private water needs. So more details are needed as to what would actually change based on (2), or whether it's just a publicity stunt that will have no real repercussions?
Why is (1) stupid? Negotiations were totally opaque and most of the treaty already came into effect… even if no one voted for it on a national basis. This would be the opportunity to finally have a public debate on important themes like trade & environment/climate change, agriculture, globalization, the power of multinational companies, sovereignty… Also there are lots of other similar treaties in preparation. Bureaucrats do everything to not bring this to the public's attention; they know it's not very popular…
(4) Yeah that was in substance the argument of the right to dismiss the text, “this phenomenon is real but it's complicated”.
(3) The idea is that people who consider that they are over-controlled could use the receipts to prove that they're being disproportionately targeted. As of now, they have no official document to use. I doubt that cops would stop doing their job for fear of being called “racist” … since they already do racial profiling on a daily basis. The idea is to lower the amount of useless controls (i.e. most of them), yes. The FI député which proposes this law said that such receipts were experienced in some Spanish cities with good results.
(5) Religion should be strictly separated from politics, so it doesn't matter what religions think. Non-religious people are largely majority in France, they weigh between 60 and 70% of the population and pretty much all religions are still receding. On this kind of theme the catholic right has completely lost the battle.
(2) Veolia and Suez handle a significant part of water distribution in France. Two thirds of the communes [municipalities] manage it directly. There are massive problems in Overseas territories with the distribution network, and some losses everywhere (up to 20% of the water according to some associations), i.e. investments are needed. I think the FI wants to terminate the delegations to the private sector and generalize the model of the régie [local public management]. But the proposed law only puts forward a general principle.
|
On February 02 2018 01:11 Velr wrote:
The actual question is if the police does this out of experience or if there guidelines that make them do this. The latter is racist and solveable, the former is kinda hard to stop.
I mean, do you want quotas on how many people of ethnicity X a police officer has to control per day?
That might actually be a case where a quota is sensible in theory, the alternative are ways to make it more random.
The basic issue is that once you start messing with the sample size "out of experience" in this kind of way you'll see more and more evidence for your assumption staying true, even if it's actually inaccurate. The only way to even detect this is to keep notes on who you're stopping exactly and then adjust for how disproportionate your sample size was compared to the population as a whole.
|
On February 02 2018 01:11 Velr wrote:
The actual question is if the police does this out of experience or if there guidelines that make them do this. The latter is racist and solveable, the former is kinda hard to stop.
I mean, do you want quotas on how many people of ethnicity X a police officer has to control per day?
The French Republic is officially colour-blind, so “ethnic quotas” are totally excluded.
Of course you won't find written instructions to target Arabs or Blacks. It's a mixture of:
(1) Specific treatments are applied to territories which concentrate the most those people in poor suburbs.
(2) Those populations have been considered like “interior enemies” for decades.
(3) The racism which exists within the French society can only irrigate institutions (people don't magically “forgo” racist practices/representations at work). A part of France has never accepted that there are Arabs or Blacks living in France. Over-controlling them is a way to question their legitimacy in the public space.
(4) Cops are more right-leaning than the rest of the population, and you will find more right-wing authoritarian personalities among them, which means that there are higher odds to find racists among them.
(5) Politique du chiffre: cops have to meet absurd statistical targets, and that kind of activity helps cops to meet them.
(6) Inertia and transmission between generations of cops… Securitarian racism exists for so long that it's simply the norm now.
(7) Sociological discrepancy between cops and the population (e.g. cops who grew up in a small town with virtually only white people, then are sent into suburbs with zero familiarity of the terrain and people living there).
|
On February 01 2018 18:23 TheDwf wrote:Today is the niche parlementaire of the FI (left), i.e. a special day where they can propose laws of their own (usually the parliamentarian agenda is dictated by the government). With those laws the FI proposes the following 5 things: (1) Calling for a referendum on the CETA. (2) Putting the right to water in the Constitution as an “inalienable right”. (3) Creating a receipt after each police identity check to prevent/fight racial profiling. (4) Recognizing as occupational diseases psychic troubles stemming from burn-ourts. (5) Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide for people suffering from incurable diseases. + Show Spoiler +Some notes:
(2) The text also defines the water as a “common good of manking” and prescribes a public monopoly for water supply and sanitation, on a not-for-profit basis. There would be a minimal threshold of consumption under which water would be free.
(3) Young males perceived as “Arabs” or “Blacks” are 20 times more likely to be controlled than the rest of the population. Time and time again, numerous studies have proved the reality of contrôles au faciès [racial profiling] in identity checks. The French State has been condamned for “discriminatory controls” in 2016 by our highest judicial instance. During the trial, the State defended itself saying, in substance: “I'm looking for undocumented strangers, it is only natural that I control Arabs and Blacks more!” (I'm not even kidding.) — Hollande had promised to implement those receipts (they were in his 2012 program), but naturally it was quickly buried afterwards to content our deeply conservative police unions (which mostly deny racism and racial profiling). Such laws would be “anti-cops” and a mark of distrust blablabla.
The funny thing is that the law is very modest: it asks only for an experimentation of the receipt in voluntary territories. Yet it will still be refused!
(4) It is estimated that more than 400 000 people suffer from a burn-out each year in France, and our country is a champion when it comes to consuming antidepressants or anxiety-relieving drugs. Heaven knows how many people commit suicide each year due to insane pressure in their jobs. The law would make it so that companies (instead of the collectivity) would pay for their terrible management.
The FI apparently commanded a poll to test the approval of those measures. For some reason, they asked people if they knew what the CETA was and if they were for it, not if they wanted a referendum on it. But other proposals get on average 60 to 80% support in the population (and would be majority regardless of the political proximity).
Naturally, due to the sectarianism of the majority, which refuses on principle all texts from other groups, none of these laws will pass.
Outcome of the day: all propositions but the last one were rejected after the general discussion, i.e. the precise content (articles and amendments) was not even debated.
(1) The resolution calling for a referendum on the CETA was rejected with 73 votes vs 25.
(2) Right to water in the Constitution: prior motion for rejection adopted with 57 votes vs 25.
(3) Racial profiling: prior motion for rejection adopted with 53 votes vs 17.
(4) On the burnout: prior motion for rejection adopted with 86 votes vs 34.
(5) End of life: prior motion for rejection was rejected with 52 votes vs 5, but the session was over, so the discussion was interrupted; the text will return to commission (?) and might be examined… later on.
All motions for rejection came from the majority, except the last one which came from the far-right.
As you can see from the scores, out of the 577 députés, pretty much no one was here (80 to 90% of absence). I somewhat understand why no one comes since we mostly have a Phantom Parliament, with no real power in our disguised monarchy, but still it's quite pathetic. The photos of an empty hémicycle are fairly devastating for the image of the institution, but they don't seem to care.
Social-democrats voted with the left, except for the CETA referendum where their official position was abstention (half of the 4 present still voted with the left).
Various groups of oppositions noted how sectarian the majority was when it came to discussing propositions which do not come from their ranks. Despite recognizing that there were legitimate issues with the themes put forward, they discarded the whole texts right away. Really funny how the increasingly authoritarian practice of the Vth Republic completely killed the historic parliamentarian tradition in France.
|
80-90% absence and everything being rejected looks more like a form of protest to me then people not bothering to show up.
How did the 'other side' of the news describe it?
|
On February 02 2018 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:
80-90% absence and everything being rejected looks more like a form of protest to me then people not bothering to show up.
How did the 'other side' of the news describe it?
The massive absentéisme is a constant, except on Tuesday and Wednesday for the sessions of questions to government, followed by final votes on whatever texts are at the agenda. It would objectively serve no purpose if all députés were here all the time, of course, but there's still abuse with the attendance rate. But as I said, in our political regime, the Parliament is mostly a chamber to ratify the wills of the executive, so it doesn't help to motivate députés to come if it's only to vote mechanically what the government wants (or have little to no power of negotiation if you're part of the opposition). The law is not elaborated within the Parliament, but in ministerial cabinets or directly at l'Élysée.
Sorry, I didn't understand your question? What do you want to know?
|
On February 02 2018 22:30 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:
80-90% absence and everything being rejected looks more like a form of protest to me then people not bothering to show up.
How did the 'other side' of the news describe it? The massive absentéisme is a constant, except on Tuesday and Wednesday for the sessions of questions to government, followed by final votes on whatever texts are at the agenda. It would objectively serve no purpose if all députés were here all the time, of course, but there's still abuse with the attendance rate. But as I said, in our political regime, the Parliament is mostly a chamber to ratify the wills of the executive, so it doesn't help to motivate députés to come if it's only to vote mechanically what the government wants (or have little to no power of negotiation if you're part of the opposition). The law is not elaborated within the Parliament, but in ministerial cabinets or directly at l'Élysée. Sorry, I didn't understand your question? What do you want to know?
Why do you consider a low attendance rate an issue in a case such as this?
Over here for example, at least during times when all factions are actively working together in some form, it's completely normal that parties are around proportionally but not all members individually. This is done because there's literally no point for everyone to show up when the voting lines are clear on a certain issue and this allows MPs to do more productive things in the meantime.
In that case people who take this as evidence for the Parliament as a whole not caring about a certain issue / being lazy simply misunderstand this process.
|
Ok, looking at it some more. Yes I disagree that outright dismissing all the proposals of the opposition is bad. If their proposals hold merit they should be debated and explored.
But if the ruling party holds such a completely overwhelming majority that 80% can stay away and they still have the votes needed then I can understand why they do stay away. Esp if the party already decided to reject everything.
|
If your only job is to attend parliament and you get a ton of tax money for it you have to attend. Everything else is a grave violation of democratic representation.
If it is clear that parties vote in line beforehand, even for outsiders like us, then this is a grave violation of MP's being obligated to represent in their own best concsience and over party interests. Then there is something fundamentally wrong with the current parliamentary systems.
|
On February 02 2018 23:16 Gorsameth wrote:
Ok, looking at it some more. Yes I disagree that outright dismissing all the proposals of the opposition is bad. If their proposals hold merit they should be debated and explored.
But if the ruling party holds such a completely overwhelming majority that 80% can stay away and they still have the votes needed then I can understand why they do stay away. Esp if the party already decided to reject everything.
Ah, OK, so since my preferred party didn't get into the Tweede Kamer and doesn't really have much of a chance, I should just stay home next time? Why bother voting, right?
|
On February 02 2018 23:50 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 23:16 Gorsameth wrote:
Ok, looking at it some more. Yes I disagree that outright dismissing all the proposals of the opposition is bad. If their proposals hold merit they should be debated and explored.
But if the ruling party holds such a completely overwhelming majority that 80% can stay away and they still have the votes needed then I can understand why they do stay away. Esp if the party already decided to reject everything.
Ah, OK, so since my preferred party didn't get into the Tweede Kamer and doesn't really have much of a chance, I should just stay home next time? Why bother voting, right?
1. thats a horrible analogy that makes no sense
2. If your preferred party cant even manage a single seat then you should look for another party that matches (in part) with your political conviction and who do manage to at least represent you in parliament.
|
On February 02 2018 23:30 Big J wrote:
If your only job is to attend parliament and you get a ton of tax money for it you have to attend. Everything else is a grave violation of democratic representation.
If it is clear that parties vote in line beforehand, even for outsiders like us, then this is a grave violation of MP's being obligated to represent in their own best concsience and over party interests. Then there is something fundamentally wrong with the current parliamentary systems.
I guess we're lucky then that attending parliament isn't the only job of an MP.
There is no reason for everyone to be around in cases where the outcome is non-controversial across party lines. In Germany for example any of the parliamentary groups or 5% of the people attending has the ability to push for postponing a vote until at least half of all MPs are around which is designed to stop any sudden surprises (e.g. one parliamentary group showing up in full force all of a sudden against agreed upon consensus).
The only reason to do that in other cases is to piss everyone else off. Since 1990 our parliament was pretty consensus driven so these cases were rather rare, but it's a decent spot to disrupt the procedure and throw away the tax payers money if any of the parliamentary groups choose to do so. That is something people should be annoyed by if it's done without a proper reason.
Saying "in this case I can fully accept the position of my party" is a choice made based on one's conscience after all. For cases where you have a lot of dissent within parties you simply agree to have everyone show up.
That's why our vote for same-sex marriage had 623 votes total (a lot of people from one party voted for something different than the majority view of their party) and the NetzDG came through with ~50. Both are completely legitimate, by design, so that MPs can spend their time (and hence our money) more efficiently.
|
On February 02 2018 23:00 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 22:30 TheDwf wrote:On February 02 2018 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:
80-90% absence and everything being rejected looks more like a form of protest to me then people not bothering to show up.
How did the 'other side' of the news describe it? The massive absentéisme is a constant, except on Tuesday and Wednesday for the sessions of questions to government, followed by final votes on whatever texts are at the agenda. It would objectively serve no purpose if all députés were here all the time, of course, but there's still abuse with the attendance rate. But as I said, in our political regime, the Parliament is mostly a chamber to ratify the wills of the executive, so it doesn't help to motivate députés to come if it's only to vote mechanically what the government wants (or have little to no power of negotiation if you're part of the opposition). The law is not elaborated within the Parliament, but in ministerial cabinets or directly at l'Élysée. Sorry, I didn't understand your question? What do you want to know? Why do you consider a low attendance rate an issue in a case such as this? Over here for example, at least during times when all factions are actively working together in some form, it's completely normal that parties are around proportionally but not all members individually. This is done because there's literally no point for everyone to show up when the voting lines are clear on a certain issue and this allows MPs to do more productive things in the meantime. In that case people who take this as evidence for the Parliament as a whole not caring about a certain issue / being lazy simply misunderstand this process.
As I said, it's fine and understandable that not all députés are here all the time; it would even be stupid since not all 577 MPs can debate at the same time. But when the routine is 80% of absence, even when there are no commissions working near the hémicycle, it does raise questions... there are some députés that no one ever saw since their election (i.e. there's not even a trace of their activity in their district!). Macron is riding on this to reduce the amount of MPs from 577 to 400.
You can of course divide by 10 and still retain the power balances in the Assemblée: instead of 16-17-30-310-50-30-100, you can have the same with 2-2-3-5-30-3-10... But the point is also to have individual voices with their liberty of vote and conscience, and their experience, and not simply an army of robots who raise their hands when asked to. I really despise the tyranny of party loyalty over personal convictions. Members of the majority almost have an imperative mandate (which is forbidden by the Constitution) since they receive instructions from Macron's party not to vote for propositions which come from other parties... unless the government allows them do so. There is virtually no separation of powers.
If the Parliament had real power, more députés (both from the majority and the opposition) would come since they would have a chance at actually doing something useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
