The whole point of governance in a democracy is consent of the governed. When lawmakers start actively going against the interests of society at large, then they've entered into the realm of authoritarianism with an occasional election - which is exactly what we accuse the 'bad guys' of doing.

▲

gruez 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

>When lawmakers start actively going against the interests of society at large[...]

But how does banning subsequent attempts at passing bills prevent this? Moreover what's preventing this mechanism from being abused to block legislation that society actually want?

▲

the_duke 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The tactic here is sneaking legislation through the system by bringing it up again and again, hoping for the public to eventually lose interest, or to catch a time with a lot of other drama going on so they can avoid the public attention/backlash.

I do think there are procedural ways to support this, like: proposed bills that are very similar to previous rejected ones need a preemptive vote with 60%+ support to be considered - if brought again with a certain time frame.

I do see your point though, there can be unforeseen consequences.

▲

Yeul 3 days ago | parent [-]

Good thing we have paid professionals whose job it is to vote on these things.

▲

gruez 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

But the whole premise is that those paid professionals have gone rogue?

▲

idle_zealot 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

There's really no fixing that kind of failure state with a bandage solution. The whole idea of a representative democracy is premised on citizens being able to elect representatives who represent their interests. If that's not holding then that's the part that needs to be fixed.

	▲	spwa4 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		No the idea of representative democracy is that the representatives would still be of "better quality" than the population average, because it takes something to become one. This is done because there's no way the majority of citizens would vote to, say, responsibly manage debt.
	▲	coldtea 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'd say it's premised on the naivety of citizens to believe what they elect are representatives

▲

Yeul 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

A political party can table any motion they want and other political parties will vote against it. That is not going rogue it is doing your job.

▲

the_duke 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Newsflash: it's the paid professionals that are doing this...

▲

coldtea 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's those paid professionals that are the problem

▲

davorak 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> There should be sorts of an exponential backoff

So some cool off period that gets larger each time a bill fails. There is not a detailed proposal, but I would assume some max cool off period is reasonable/desirable as well.

So it could not be used to block legislation that society actually wants forever but it would block the legislature from passing it in a limited time frame.

Another reasonable addition that would work well at more local levels but would be a new challenge to implement at the national level in the USA is to have citizen lead referendums with minimum participation requirements to by pass this cool off period. That way if legislation is important the voters can bypass the cool off period.

▲

gbin 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am not sure because this assumes a very well informed and educated population.

Think about this one, start a populist stupid referendum like: "Should the gov give you $10M?", I could bet it will end up at 90% yes and the entire country ends up in ruins. So democracy is good but you need some sort of trust in the middle. With this backward law, the trust is eroding.

▲

autoexec 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Think about this one, start a populist stupid referendum like: "Should the gov give you $10M?", I could bet it will end up at 90% yes and the entire country ends up in ruins.

I think people might agree with that if they alone were going to get the money, but far too many people vote against their own interests to keep "the wrong people" from getting anything. They'd never allow a "give everyone 10M" referendum to pass.

▲

kjkjadksj 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We want the population to be well informed. But when you consider the history of literacy, journalism, and what media most people have access towards, that assumption was never really true in the first place. People were always getting propagandized as soon as they had the power to vote or even merely chose among suppliers. Probably long before that too.

▲

coldtea 3 days ago | parent [-]

>We want the population to be well informed.

Who is "we" though? The elites with interests counter to what's best for the people, for example, surely want the opposite.

	▲	kjkjadksj 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		We the collective. The elites would like to remain the god kings they always were, and they have done a good job of it over history.

▲

likeclockwork 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Making mistakes is a critical part of learning. What legitimate authority stands above the will of the people?

▲

coldtea 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Such bullshit hypotheticals are used to justify the dismantling of democracy and keeping it only in name.

In actuality, most of the stupid decisions that drove countries to the ground are made by "respected statesmen".

▲

mikestorrent 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The problem here is that many who are in favour of Chat Control (and of its predecessors) really do honestly think they're doing something for the benefit of society.

Focusing on these supposedly well-meaning individuals - I'm going to assume they somehow never consumed any dystopian fiction as a child, the purpose of which was to inoculate a generation against totalitarianism. They don't understand the overreach they are committing to. They think that, because they're a Good Person and wouldn't abuse it, nobody else will, and the massive security loophole created by this effort will not have any downsides. They'll just be able to stop all the baddies!

Meanwhile, those of us who live in reality know that:

* smart criminals will just use unlicensed technologies to get around this, trivially

* dumb criminals will figure out how to use code words for plausible deniability / bayesian "hide in plain sight"

* political dissidents who are exercising free speech will become more vulnerable than ever

And, of course, that's all if the government was only populated by good people who don't intend to abuse this! I have no reason to believe that; does anyone? Is there anyone who so truly loves their government in 2025 that they want them reading all their messages (even moreso than now)?

Can't wait to go to jail for texting a meme to the group chat.

▲

mionhe 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Can't wait to go to jail for texting a meme to the group chat.

For a second I thought that was a great hypothetical example, then I remembered that's a thing that actually happens now in the UK and got a little sad instead.

	▲	petre 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The UK is totally screwed, they need another Guy Fawkes moment. Which would probably get branded as terrorism nowadays, but still.

▲

mattlutze 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's the benefit and frustration of the democratic or representative democratic process.

Balance access to governance with fairness, and accept that you will never always get your way.

Similar to this, indeed some kind of fair and predictable cooling off period for a piece of legislation ensures the governing body isn't frozen in one influential faction's obsessions, while also allowing the voice of the people that faction represents to still be heard.

But exponential backoff feels too open to be gamed by countervailing factions. Some small period of time within a session however could make sense.

▲

isodev 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> When lawmakers start actively going against

The bill is being pushed and reintroduced by elected representatives from each country, both in the council as well as EP.

People electing populist elements and then being surprised pikachu at the suboptimal policies.

	▲	account42 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		People generally elect populists once the other options have shown that they won't listen to the people.
	▲	coldtea 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's not the populist elements that push for such things, it's the right, the "responsible centrist", and the fake-ass left of center scum