|
|
|
|
|
|
by constantcrying
339 days ago
|
|
|
How Orwellian. Democracy is not, about implementing whatever the majority says, nowhere in the world is democracy practiced like that. Democracy is about safeguarding minority rights and enforcing a government which functions by compromise. Protection against the tyranny of the majority, is what democracy is about. To justify the "Orwellian". A society wide consensus justifies a total state, it removes legitimation from the opposition and creates an environment where divergence becomes suspicious.
What OP does not understand is that totalitarian regimes in most case do have a popular mandate and exactly that popular mandate is used to justify the total state. Additionally, OP talks about Iran, but has he considered what would happen if 70% of the Iranian population would support the regime? What would the result look like, if not perfect evidence that the opposition should be oppressed. |
|
|
This is an excellent critique, and it gets to the heart of the protocol's design. You are right to point out the risk of a "tyranny of the majority" in the promotion process.
The protocol's primary goal is indeed the deliberative "tournament." It's designed to shine in a situation where a fragmented majority exists, allowing them to build a unified voice through successive rounds of debate.
However, your comment highlights the need for a fail-safe in the scenario you described. In that case, the protocol is designed to produce a crucial byproduct: the transparent, aggregated data from all Level 1 groups. Even if a minority is outvoted in the tournament, the system would still capture and report the total percentage of votes their ideals received nationwide.
So, to your crucial question about a 70% pro-regime majority: the tournament would likely reflect that reality, but the protocol's data byproduct would simultaneously provide undeniable proof that "30% of the population supports opposition ideals." This proves their ideals are not a "tiny fringe," but a significant political reality that must be contended with.
The system is therefore designed with a dual function: its primary path is to forge a majority consensus, but its fail-safe path guarantees the ability to accurately map the strength of minority views.
Thank you for a sharp question that pushed me to articulate this core duality more clearly.