Alternatives to the Simple Majority Vote?

[Aepervius]

Besidwe polygamy and women as chattel:

Also if one want to go by tradition., we should stone women (or couple) which are adulter, or , brand a big A on their forehead.

Also abortion can now be done about 240 month after pregnancy : we should leave handycapped kid to the wolves (or today more like strays) to eaten or die, in the next forest, or when we don't have enough food/money.

Slavery was a tradition in many country (and rfankly is still in some).

It was traditional to torture people to extract confession. To put someone to the question, wasn't exactly an itnerview process...

And i pass many others.

There are quite a few tradition we could dust up. But naturally gay mariage oponent concentrate on those they wish to put the accent on, trying as much as possible to avoid bringing up the other tradition.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

Getting back to the OP - simple majority rule is just that. While "democracy" is an elusive and contested term, most current definitions of the word involves a lot more than majority rule. The protection of minorities and civil liberties are also important.

That said, I'm sad that the Human Rights Court here in Europe, which does have authority over the EU member states, has ruled against marriage being a human right. I do see why, though - were the court to press this issue, it would cause so much trouble with the eastern and southern member states that it would lose the power it does have now, and the ability to do good on so many other issues.

So while I agree that same-sex marriage is absolutely a human right, at this point it just won't fly here. This will change, in time, hopefully sooner than we think.

 

[Aepervius]

@openminded, there are quite a few weighted vote method, for example we have one where we can vote on any number of people by crossing their name or not, not limit on the number we can cross.

So you have for example :
O Marie
O Joe
O John
O Jules

And you can cross in the circle zero (white vote) , 1, 2 , 3 or all of the name.

I assume such a poll could be construed for issues by starting to giving no right, then adding option increasing the number of right to full right (no matter which right issue we speak of).

I see two problem :
* formulating the question neutraly
* in the end it is still a tyrany of the majority as the majority decide which right are given, independetely whether the issue is ethical or not. For example I doubt slavery would have been ousted by such a vote.

 

[qayak]

Getting back to the OP - simple majority rule is just that. While "democracy" is an elusive and contested term, most current definitions of the word involves a lot more than majority rule. The protection of minorities and civil liberties are also important.

Democracy is simply one person, one vote and allows the majority to dictate to the minority.

A republic also gives you a charter that protects the rights of individuals and minority groups.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Seems to me that the main reason that people want gay marriage is so that gay couples can get the same rights as married straight couples. Seems to me that all that really needs to be done is to extend the rights from Married Couples to Long Term Partners, thus including straight De Facto or Common Law couples too, who would miss out otherwise.

Basically move the laws from Marriage to Long Term Partnership so that is what is recognised and marriage is just an extra peice of paper. Add the ability for a couple to be consider long term after being together as a couple for 12 months and allow them to opt out if they desire, and it's all done.

 

[Finn McR]

Throughout all of human history, marriage has always been been understood and defined as a union between a man and a woman. That is what marriage is.

This has been true in nearly every society, all over the world, even in those societies that have had no connection with western religions.

It is the proponents of “gay marriage” who are making the extraordinary claim here—that a vulgar mockery of something is, and should be treated as, exactly the same thing as the real thing that is being mocked.

Um, except for early Mormons, many Muslims... Your definition of marriage may differ from others'. The big problem that you and your ilk run into is that there is a separation of church and state in the U.S.A. The government has made "marriage" a significant status under the law. To the extent that the government accepts "marriage", it can only have a secular interpretation. Any religious interpretation (with respect to public law) is now not in the interest of the government of the U.S.A. It does not matter if your wiccan/jewish/catholic/lutheran/baptist/taoist/buddhist/zoarastrian/sunni/sufi/shi'ite/FSM/LoTR-ist church does not acknowledge the marriage. If the state does, it counts. And the state has no basis for discriminating against same-gender marriage that does not have a religious bias.
There are some prevalent lies that the government will require religious denominations to hold marriage ceremonies in opposition to their beliefs. Check the real sources. That's not in any proposed law I've seen.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

It is the proponents of “gay marriage” who are making the extraordinary claim here—that a vulgar mockery of something is, and should be treated as, exactly the same thing as the real thing that is being mocked.

Oh wow, you actually hold the kooky belief that letting same-sex couples be equal under the law somehow magically affects heterosexual marriages? By that logic, you shouldn't let unattractive, unsympathetic or poorly matched heterosexuals marry either. I'm glad for the sacred institution of romantic marriage that we have people of your impeccable class and wit to run the marriage approval board. It's the only way to make sure that only those who elevate the condition gets to be joined in matrimony.

"Sorry, no tax breaks, child custody or inheritance rights for you! You're not very well articulated, and your complexion and phrenology scores leave a lot to be desired. Oh, all right, go cohabitate and write a bunch of contracts if you really must."

That'll teach'em!

Actually, scratch that. Since your statement above is a vulgar mockery of a coherent argument, I shall go by your own standards and not treat it as one. I'll let it suffice to blow raspberries at you from my castle wall.

Now go away, or you shall be taunted a second time.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

Democracy is simply one person, one vote and allows the majority to dictate to the minority.

Sure, you can define the word that way. I'd advise you to qualify it, though, so as to avoid misunderstandings. When people use the word, this (what I would call "pure" democracy) is almost never what they mean by it.

A republic also gives you a charter that protects the rights of individuals and minority groups.

Well, I happen to live in a democratic country, Denmark, that isn't a republic but has these features and more.

 

[zooterkin]

Sorry, no.

Throughout all of human history, marriage has always been been understood and defined as a union between a man and one or more women. There were a few exceptions, but that was the rule.

How can you have an exception to 'always'? Either it is or it isn't. And in fact, it isn't since there are examples of polyandry being practiced.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Um, except for early Mormons, many Muslims...

Even under polygamy, marriage is still between a man and a woman. neither Mormonism, nor Islam have ever recognized the idea that a man can marry another man, or that a woman can marry another woman.

The only difference, in a culture where polygamy is allowed, is that one person is allowed to enter into more than one marriage.

 

[Aepervius]

Even under polygamy, marriage is still between a man and a woman. neither Mormonism, nor Islam have ever recognized the idea that a man can marry another man, or that a woman can marry another woman.

The only difference, in a culture where polygamy is allowed, is that one person is allowed to enter into more than one marriage.

That still does not justify why ONE such recent tradition should be taken over others. Like stoning Adulterer.

 

[cwalner]

Seems to me that the main reason that people want gay marriage is so that gay couples can get the same rights as married straight couples. Seems to me that all that really needs to be done is to extend the rights from Married Couples to Long Term Partners, thus including straight De Facto or Common Law couples too, who would miss out otherwise.

Basically move the laws from Marriage to Long Term Partnership so that is what is recognised and marriage is just an extra peice of paper. Add the ability for a couple to be consider long term after being together as a couple for 12 months and allow them to opt out if they desire, and it's all done.

Except that in the US common law marriages already exist, but only recognize LTR for opposite gender couples. I think the length is currently 5 or 7 years before it is considered a common law marriage though.

 

[marplots]

... some snipped...
If you shed your political convictions for a just a second, you can see this situation is ludicrous. How can you expect two almost equally matched, antagonistic groups to coexist harmoniously?
... lots more snipped...

Here is why it works. Because we agree that the system is more valuable than any decision made under it. And one further thing. While I am licking my wounds and griping about how my side should have won, I understand that I get another try at it -- that I can try to convince people to come to my side of the question and this will change the numbers. In short, I have hope.

That's why it works. Harmonious doesn't really come into it. But neither does the discord rise to the level of me shooting you or your dog.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Except that in the US common law marriages already exist, but only recognize LTR for opposite gender couples. I think the length is currently 5 or 7 years before it is considered a common law marriage though.

So? My premise is that all long term relationships are treated the same way, regardless of who they are between, this should be what the rights are determined by, not having conducted a ceremony and signed a bit of paper. Marriage should be just a bit of paper signed for religious reasons and have no other legal standing.

 

[Cleon]

Throughout all of human history, marriage has always been been understood and defined as a union between a man and a woman. That is what marriage is.

First of all, no, this is not correct.

Second, you're a Mormon. How can you make this claim with a straight face? It's not even true for your own religion.

 

[GreyArea]

@GreyArea: Yeah, that's totally what I'm thinking about now, how voting needs to escape the binary form. I think in some way it reinforces people falling for false dichotomies and getting so polarized.

I'm glad you liked it.

Would it be worthwhile to try writing the options for an imaginary marriage equality referendum?

 

[Mark6]

How can you have an exception to 'always'? Either it is or it isn't. And in fact, it isn't since there are examples of polyandry being practiced.

I should have said "almost always". And in fact I was thinking about polyandry (Tibet) when I wrote my previous post.

 

[qayak]

A letter On The Catholic History of Marriage from Stephen Schloesser, Professor of History Boston College to Senator Marian Walsh of MA.

http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2004/imp-141.htm

Dear Senator Walsh:

I am a Jesuit priest and professor of late modern European History at Boston College. Several of my colleagues have asked me to write you, thank you, and affirm your course of action during recent weeks in resisting calls to change the Massachusetts constitution. From what I have heard from others, you - like me - are a practicing Roman Catholic; understandably, you have felt faced with a serious dilemma and difficult decision: on the one hand, the Church's institutional stance, made all the more forceful by a $1 million lobbying effort on the part of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference; on the other, a sense that issues of human/civil rights and equality are at stake.

"3,000 years of History": Maybe the most frustrating thing I have heard in the recent debate is this claim that has become a mantra: that we are in the process of changing some allegedly unchanging 3,000-year-old institution called "marriage." Of course, the decision to grant marriage licenses would be a "change" in marriage practice - but "marriage," whatever that is, is always in the process of being changed. To pretend that its alteration is somehow a rupture in what is otherwise a three-thousand year continuity is just silly.

It's a great read. Very enlightening.

 

[zooterkin]

I should have said "almost always". And in fact I was thinking about polyandry (Tibet) when I wrote my previous post.

I later realised that you were rewording what Bob Blaylock had said, and he'd used 'always', so I can see how it got in there unqualified.

 

[JJM 777]

Living in a democracy means that the majority rules, even simple majorities that barely outnumber the next biggest group.

So you are told. The least detested alternative stays in power, even if it is no-one´s first preference.

However, the reality is far from how you describe it. We seldom vote in referendum about a political issue. (And if we do, we cannot add our own favourite option to the list, someone has made a very limited list from which we must pick an option.) We vote a group of politicians to power, who then make the decisions. In the best case the person whom I voted to power agrees with me in 10 or 20 key issues, in other issues where we disagree, he will use my voting power to promote policies that are against my political will.

So what alternatives would there be? An obvious alternative (and I expect this to become more common as Information Technology advances) would be to use referendum more often (as Internet technology will make it cheaper and easier), even in all cases where any law is changed.

But this is not what I want from the society. Not at all. I detest the idea that majority assumes (!) the right to decide about the resources and rights of smaller minorities. Who gave them that right? Themselves. My ideal is a society where:
- people decide (by referendum), elected politicians organize and implement
- you can vote about each issue exactly as you wish, if the public list does not include your preference then you can add it (before anyone starts voting) and give it your vote
- indivisible issues are decided by majority vote
- for divisible issues, resources and state money are allocated to various voted preferences according to the percentage ratio how these received support from the votes (not 100% of resouces to a 51% majority), no matter how great or small the support of each alternative is
- Issues are accepted as indivisible (for majority vote) only if nobody is able to prove that they in fact are divisible. For example, 51% majority cannot dictate the dress codes for 100% of the area of the country, the surface area is practically divisible into smaller shares, either as large chunks or as smaller local groups of chunks.