[EM] Possibly more stable consensus government

[Raph Frank]

Sorry, hit "reply" instead of

- reply All, then move EM to "to" field and delete Kristofer Munsterhjelm

Gmail really hates the system EM uses.

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<km_elmet at lavabit.com> wrote:
> Would that configuration weaken the consensus aspect of the system? Perhaps
> a government that happened to have a supermajority at one point "outstays
> their welcome" and gets increasingly unpopular until there's a sufficient
> supermajority in the other direction, then that government gets replaced by
> its opposite pole, and rinse and repeat.

You could have a rule that the first government after an election just
needs a majority of the vote and then the new rule kicks in.  That is
more democratic.

In coalition politics, it would create an incentive for betrayal.

For example, if  there was one party with 45% of the seats, and one
with 20% of the seats, they could form a government.

However, once the government is formed, the 20% group could be betrayed.

Also, it depends on what you mean by "government".

It could mean that the assembly approves a Prime Minister by 60%.  The
Prime Minister would then have the right to decide cabinet members.

You could require approval by 40/50/60 percent of the assembly.  If
you make it 40%, then he can instantly ditch the 25% party.

Even without direct betrayal, the power of the smaller party would collapse.

Another thing about confidence is that it can be used as a stick by
the government too.  If the government wants a policy passed, they can
tie it to a motion of no confidence.  Wayward members of the party
might support it because they don't want to trigger an election.