The Real problem with cancel culture

[Josquius]

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.

I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?

I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.

I'm not sure it is a flaw that we don't want to let our country break into component pieces the way the English seem to feel about the UK.

It's a huge flaw.
A country that only exists by force is no democracy.
Letting random secessionists get just one 50%+1 vote isn't the way either. But a clear majority of the electorate? There's just no excuse for forcing them to remain part of the country.

The UK doesn't seem concerned about clear majorities, if Brexit and talk around Scottish independence are any indication.

And force? Why are you positing soldiers in the streets?

Brexit wasn't a clear majority. It was an example of the what not to do, let the nutters get 50%+1 just once that I mentioned.

Why am I positing soldiers on the streets? What do you expect to happen in this theoretical situation then?
So California has a referendum where 70% of eligible voters say they want to be independnet.... The US says no.... And then how do they stop California going ahead and doing it?

[Sheilbh]

I just don't see how it can be legitimate if a bare majority counts for one side but not the other. I mean it does help if your just de-legitimise one side as nutters I suppose

I don't think there's necessarily a flaw within the US because there's no big serious secessionist movements. If those exist then there's a decision of whether you acknowledge that's a possible action and risk break-up of your country, or you refuse to deal with/acknowledge them and risk possibly having to compel to stay in a country against their will. But it's not an issue in the US.

[Josquius]

I just don't see how it can be legitimate if a bare majority counts for one side but not the other. I mean it does help if your just de-legitimise one side as nutters I suppose

Change.
We can vote 100 times whether to blow up your house and if it keeps failing your house stands.
But the change just needs to pass once and then it's gone. No more votes are brining it back.
There's a key distinction between a vote between two equal choices and one between the status quo and an irreversible change.

If you like we can term it that a true majority for the status quo side means no more votes. The issue is dead forever. But that doesn't seem fair.

[Sheilbh]

Change.
We can vote 100 times whether to blow up your house and if it keeps failing your house stands.
But the change just needs to pass once and then it's gone. No more votes are brining it back.
There's a key distinction between a vote between two equal choices and one between the status quo and an irreversible change.

If you like we can term it that a true majority for the status quo side means no more votes. The issue is dead forever. But that doesn't seem fair.

But again that just privileges the status quo as inherently legitimate which seems weird if it lost majority support/consent by the governed, but not by enough. I don't see why it's any better that there isn't change and your house isn't blown up, than despite wanting to leave your kept locked in your house because you didn't want it enough

There is always going to be a +1 point - and maybe if you have a constitutional tradition of supermajorities in referendums it'll be fine if it's organised that way. But if not it feels like both sides should have the same hurdle.

The 70s Scottish referendum is a huge example of this where they needed not just a majority of votes but also said it needed at least 40% of the electorate - unlike every other electoral exercise in British history. The Yes vote won (52/48%) but turnout was only 60%-ish so, Yes only got 33% of the vote and devolution didn't go any further. It caused a lot of controversy at the time and campaigns around devolution for the next 20 years because the perception was the will of Scottish voters was ignored on a technicality - things like a (devolutionist) constitutional convention, "A Claim of Right for Scotland" etc.

But even the 1997 referendum which went 75% to Yes would only just pass the old 70s threshold because turnout was about 60%.

[Berkut]

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.

I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?

I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.

I'm not sure it is a flaw that we don't want to let our country break into component pieces the way the English seem to feel about the UK.

It's a huge flaw.
A country that only exists by force is no democracy.
Letting random secessionists get just one 50%+1 vote isn't the way either. But a clear majority of the electorate? There's just no excuse for forcing them to remain part of the country.

Of course there is an excuse. Even people in the minority ahve rights, and a majority destroying a country impacts those rights that are not amenable to the will of the mob.

There could be circumstances under which secession is morally and ethically justifiable. 50%+1 is perhaps a necessary, but hardly sufficient condition for that justication.

[Razgovory]

I just don't see how it can be legitimate if a bare majority counts for one side but not the other. I mean it does help if your just de-legitimise one side as nutters I suppose

Change.
We can vote 100 times whether to blow up your house and if it keeps failing your house stands.
But the change just needs to pass once and then it's gone. No more votes are brining it back.
There's a key distinction between a vote between two equal choices and one between the status quo and an irreversible change.

If you like we can term it that a true majority for the status quo side means no more votes. The issue is dead forever. But that doesn't seem fair.

You could require a two-thirds majority.

[PDH]

The southern states in 1860 didn't even allow the Republican Party to be on the ballot.  The succession votes were either made by a loyal rump of people, as Valmy said they were voted and re-voted until the desired results, or the results were ignored.

There is very little democratic about the succession crisis post-1860 election.

[Sheilbh]

Of course there is an excuse. Even people in the minority ahve rights, and a majority destroying a country impacts those rights that are not amenable to the will of the mob.

There could be circumstances under which secession is morally and ethically justifiable. 50%+1 is perhaps a necessary, but hardly sufficient condition for that justication.

I don't think 50%+1 is necessary or that there is a right answer it just depends on what your constitutional/political tradition is I think.

I would note that I think it's striking how much Americans in this thread on a classic ACW hijack are defending the importance of protecting minority (elector/voter) rights and suggesting supermajorities etc etc - when it's exactly those provisions that enabled the South to keep Jim Crow as long as they did and that basically make the current GOP strategy that we all worry about in the Qua Vadis thread work. It's away from just thinking about secession - that's the downside.

I think that's an example of how your view and what is just depends on social and historical context of where you are.

[Josquius]

Change.
We can vote 100 times whether to blow up your house and if it keeps failing your house stands.
But the change just needs to pass once and then it's gone. No more votes are brining it back.
There's a key distinction between a vote between two equal choices and one between the status quo and an irreversible change.

If you like we can term it that a true majority for the status quo side means no more votes. The issue is dead forever. But that doesn't seem fair.

But again that just privileges the status quo as inherently legitimate which seems weird if it lost majority support/consent by the governed, but not by enough. I don't see why it's any better that there isn't change and your house isn't blown up, than despite wanting to leave your kept locked in your house because you didn't want it enough

There is always going to be a +1 point - and maybe if you have a constitutional tradition of supermajorities in referendums it'll be fine if it's organised that way. But if not it feels like both sides should have the same hurdle.

The 70s Scottish referendum is a huge example of this where they needed not just a majority of votes but also said it needed at least 40% of the electorate - unlike every other electoral exercise in British history. The Yes vote won (52/48%) but turnout was only 60%-ish so, Yes only got 33% of the vote and devolution didn't go any further. It caused a lot of controversy at the time and campaigns around devolution for the next 20 years because the perception was the will of Scottish voters was ignored on a technicality - things like a (devolutionist) constitutional convention, "A Claim of Right for Scotland" etc.

But even the 1997 referendum which went 75% to Yes would only just pass the old 70s threshold because turnout was about 60%.

Sure. In theory the same rules should apply to both sides.
But this only works with an A or B decision.
When your decision is to A or not to A then what happens if neither side wins? By default that makes not to A.
If this cannot be the case as one side wants it then its easy for them to game things and say they want something else despite being happy with a draw.

When it comes to a "destructive" action of large change then the status quo is always not necessarily better but certainly known and understood and a worthy drop back.
I wouldn't suggest the same exists for stuff like constitutional amendments on extending voting rights.

50%+1 is just insanity with massive things like independence or brekshit where history has shown if the yes side wins then no compromise can be tolerated.

[Sheilbh]

Sure. In theory the same rules should apply to both sides.
But this only works with an A or B decision.
When your decision is to A or not to A then what happens if neither side wins? By default that makes not to A.
If this cannot be the case as one side wants it then its easy for them to game things and say they want something else despite being happy with a draw.

When it comes to a "destructive" action of large change then the status quo is always not necessarily better but certainly known and understood and a worthy drop back.
I wouldn't suggest the same exists for stuff like constitutional amendments on extending voting rights.

50%+1 is just insanity with massive things like independence or brekshit where history has shown if the yes side wins then no compromise can be tolerated.

But Brexit's a great example - it took 4-5 years to happen. The same would happen with independence it's very rarely a "next day we're independent" kind of thing - unless the state is already collapsing.

Of course there can be compromise or a re-consideration you just need to actually win the political argument. There were loads of moments when things could have been re-considered or reversed. That it wasn't is because one side was bad at politics and consistently lost the arguments they needed to be winning. That's a very bad reason to fiddle with the mandateor voting system to give one side insurance or protect them from themselves.

[The Brain]

I am not aware of any mechanism in US law for secession. Is there such a mechanism? If not, then accepting secession would mean throwing the Rule of Law out the window.

I wouldn't be surprised if secession would require that you first amend the constitution. If so, then that's the logical first step for secessionists.

I don't think that necessarily follows. You can create a lawful mechanism for secession having accepted it - and practically speaking if Congress and the other states accept a secession, what does a Supreme Court ruling saying that's unlawful actually mean? You know what divisions do they have to enforce that?

Although I think practically secession normally comes in a "constitutional moment" when the rules are in flux and things are being settled so I think it would just be part of that.

Like I said, if you don't care about Rule of Law then anything is possible, of course. If making things legal after the fact is on the table then you can start an Auschwitz, no legal problem. Just make it legal in the future.

[Sheilbh]

But isn't just the same as how almost all constitutions are created? There is a need or a desire for a typically select group to create and promulgate a new constitution so a mechanism is created to make it lawful even though they're often largely binding on future generations and that's it - off they go to write the rules for a society.

I think with secession it would be similar - if there was a pressing political need the legal means would be created for a similarly select group to do the same.

With Auschwitz and Nazism - the legality is not the core problem. I'd add that for all of the extent Weimar Germany as an example of the dangers of political failure - it had a good constitution with an independent judiciary. We all know about the risks of unstable democracy and that 33% party and the conservative groups thinking they could co-opt it etc, but it also shows the limits of a constitutional order or the rule of law (though the Nazis had Schmitt - who is having a resurgence both in the West thinking about climate politics in particular, and in China) as a protection.

[The Brain]

But isn't just the same as how almost all constitutions are created? There is a need or a desire for a typically select group to create and promulgate a new constitution so a mechanism is created to make it lawful even though they're often largely binding on future generations and that's it - off they go to write the rules for a society.

I think with secession it would be similar - if there was a pressing political need the legal means would be created for a similarly select group to do the same.

Legal means created after the act != Rule of Law. Many new countries are created through extraordinary means, for obvious reasons. But there is nothing inherent in secession that means it has to be extraordinary.

With Auschwitz and Nazism - the legality is not the core problem.

No shit.

[viper37]

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.

I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?

I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.

I'm not sure it is a flaw that we don't want to let our country break into component pieces the way the English seem to feel about the UK.

It's a huge flaw.
A country that only exists by force is no democracy.
Letting random secessionists get just one 50%+1 vote isn't the way either. But a clear majority of the electorate? There's just no excuse for forcing them to remain part of the country.

The UK doesn't seem concerned about clear majorities, if Brexit and talk around Scottish independence are any indication.

And force? Why are you positing soldiers in the streets?

Brexit wasn't a clear majority. It was an example of the what not to do, let the nutters get 50%+1 just once that I mentioned.

Why am I positing soldiers on the streets? What do you expect to happen in this theoretical situation then?
So California has a referendum where 70% of eligible voters say they want to be independnet.... The US says no.... And then how do they stop California going ahead and doing it?

50%+1 is used for all kinds of decisions.  Legalize drugs? 50%+1.  Criminilize/legalize abortion?  50%+1.  Permit felons to vote or not?  50%+1.  Remove all voting restrictions? 50%+1.  Impose voting restrictions? 50%+1.  Admit a new State/Province?  50%+1.

If a country has special provisions that requires another kind of margins, like 2/3 votes for any kind of other votes, I'm not opposed to that standard being applied.

But since 50%+1 is nearly always the norm, except when it's time to weaken an overbearing central government, I'm defininately opposed to special rules that amount as voter suppression techniques.

If a State/Province/Country/Region wants to democratically secede, it should be the duty of the central authority to negotiate in good faith with this part to organize a referendum.

On this, the British government acted in a very mature way with the Scottish independence movement, much more than the Canadian government ever did.  It acted the way a modern democracy should act.  Unlike Spain, Serbia or Russia.

Even though I disagree with Brexit, the people have spoken.  It's what they wanted.  Europe respected that and negotiated the exit.  The UK really fumbled it on its own.  As it should be.  The people of the UK voted on it.  Not the people of Germany, France and Poland.  This is how it should be.

But somehow, when it comes to a declaration of independence, it's all good when it's done in the past, they're all heroes for breaking away from their countries, like the US, Texas, the Dutch Republic, Algeria, South Korea (we even fought a war to make sure that part could stay independent, but that was ok then...), most people become totally hysterical and try to change the rules.  Somehow, what's democratic in one place is no longer democratic in another place.  The method of voting laws that was good everywere up to this point is no longer valid.  Everyone wanting to leave should be jailed or hanged. 

I'll never get the point of forcing other people to love you.

FFS, if Republican States wanted to leave the Union today, the Blue States should let them go and provide ressetlement package for everyone wanting to leave these places.

[viper37]

I am not aware of any mechanism in US law for secession. Is there such a mechanism? If not, then accepting secession would mean throwing the Rule of Law out the window.

I wouldn't be surprised if secession would require that you first amend the constitution. If so, then that's the logical first step for secessionists.

I don't think that necessarily follows. You can create a lawful mechanism for secession having accepted it - and practically speaking if Congress and the other states accept a secession, what does a Supreme Court ruling saying that's unlawful actually mean? You know what divisions do they have to enforce that?

Although I think practically secession normally comes in a "constitutional moment" when the rules are in flux and things are being settled so I think it would just be part of that.

Like I said, if you don't care about Rule of Law then anything is possible, of course. If making things legal after the fact is on the table then you can start an Auschwitz, no legal problem. Just make it legal in the future.

For many centuries, divorce was illegal.  Then it became so.

Abortion was once illegal in Canada.  Then a women had an illegal abortion, was criminally sued and that law was changed.  AFTER THE FACT DAMMIT!!!!

Horrible, horrible, I say.

Most social advances happen like that, you know?  People commit crime.  Like that black lady who sat in the front of the bus.  She broke the rule of law.  According to your principle, she should have been jailed for life, and Black folks should still have their seperate seats at the back of buses, their seperate drinking fountain, their seperate schools, toilets, colleges, etc.  They did break the rule of the law and it only became legal after they violated the law. But they should still be in jail, I guess?  We made it legal after the fact...  Totally wrong...