Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DemocracyOS

democracyos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 160 posts

Re: DemocracyOS

#11

Post by frozenport »

jtmurphy wrote: post #9

Political systems should protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. I worry that Democracy OS's idea fails to address this issue. If the politicians always vote with the majority, what if the majority wants to violate the rights of the minority?

The remedy is to require more than a majority threshold for decisions to be made. For example, a decision could require 80% agreement before it becomes law.

In the USA we handle these issues with a representation by region (states) rather than by population. Solutions feel more like post-processing, then data gathering.

Re: DemocracyOS

#13

Post by r0naa »

broodbucket wrote: post #10

As with others, I am really struggling to see why this has "OS" in the name. It's not an operating system. I'm guessing it stands for "open source", which isn't really an acronym people use in favour of OSS/FOSS (probably because OS already has a very well established meaning). Can someone share some insight on the naming decision?

Well, I think that it's a relevant analogy to what an operating system does. Like an OS a system of government (like Democracy) manages a collection of physical elements (institutions) and serves as an interface between those and the end-users (citizens.)

Re: DemocracyOS

#14

Post by wyager »

frozenport wrote: post #11
jtmurphy wrote: post #9

Political systems should protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. I worry that Democracy OS's idea fails to address this issue. If the politicians always vote with the majority, what if the majority wants to violate the rights of the minority?

The remedy is to require more than a majority threshold for decisions to be made. For example, a decision could require 80% agreement before it becomes law. In the USA we handle these issues with a representation by region (states) rather than by population. Solutions feel more like post-processing, then data gathering.

That doesn't defend against tyranny of the majority; it just requires a larger majority.

In the USA we defend against tyranny of the majority with the constitution. The constitution places strict limits on what the majority can do to the minority through governmental force.

Re: DemocracyOS

#15

Post by saraid216 »

broodbucket wrote: post #10

As with others, I am really struggling to see why this has "OS" in the name. It's not an operating system. I'm guessing it stands for "open source", which isn't really an acronym people use in favour of OSS/FOSS (probably because OS already has a very well established meaning). Can someone share some insight on the naming decision?

> Her team’s vision is to make DemocracyOS the “operating system of a more open and participatory government.”

From: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/des...

Re: DemocracyOS

#16

Post by [deleted] »

frozenport wrote: post #11
jtmurphy wrote: post #9

Political systems should protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. I worry that Democracy OS's idea fails to address this issue. If the politicians always vote with the majority, what if the majority wants to violate the rights of the minority?

The remedy is to require more than a majority threshold for decisions to be made. For example, a decision could require 80% agreement before it becomes law. In the USA we handle these issues with a representation by region (states) rather than by population. Solutions feel more like post-processing, then data gathering.

[deleted]

Re: DemocracyOS

#17

Post by jtmurphy »

wyager wrote: post #14
frozenport wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The remedy is to require more than a majority threshold for decisions to be made. For example, a decision could require 80% agreement before it becomes law. In the USA we handle these issues with a representation by region (states) rather than by population. Solutions feel more like post-processing, then data gathering.

That doesn't defend against tyranny of the majority; it just requires a larger majority. In the USA we defend against tyranny of the majority with the constitution. The constitution places strict limits on what the majority can do to the minority through governmental force.

I agree with wyager.

A political system should be a strong constitution that defines the rights of individuals. Something like DemocracyOS should be used to engage the population into ensuring that political actions are in fact constitutional and just.

Re: DemocracyOS

#18

Post by saraid216 »

jtmurphy wrote: post #9

Political systems should protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. I worry that Democracy OS's idea fails to address this issue. If the politicians always vote with the majority, what if the majority wants to violate the rights of the minority?

Ironically, the solution to tyranny of the majority is a strong executive.

Re: DemocracyOS

#19

Post by pekk »

jtmurphy wrote: post #9

Political systems should protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. I worry that Democracy OS's idea fails to address this issue. If the politicians always vote with the majority, what if the majority wants to violate the rights of the minority?

Who decides what the rights are? A majority?

Re: DemocracyOS

#20

Post by jlgosse »

broodbucket wrote: post #10

As with others, I am really struggling to see why this has "OS" in the name. It's not an operating system. I'm guessing it stands for "open source", which isn't really an acronym people use in favour of OSS/FOSS (probably because OS already has a very well established meaning). Can someone share some insight on the naming decision?

Agreed, why not just choose "Democracy"?
Post reply on HN