Something
Emporium

Wikipedia on Athenian Ostracism

Wikipedia on Athenian Ostracism

Each year the Athenians were asked in the assembly whether they wished to hold an ostracism. The question was put in the sixth of the ten months used for state business under the democracy (January or February in the modern Gregorian Calendar). If they voted "yes", then an ostracism would be held two months later. In a roped-off area of the agora, citizens scratched the name of a citizen they wished to expel on potshards, and deposited them in urns. The presiding officials counted the ostraka submitted; if a minimum of six thousand votes were reached, then the ostracism took place: the officials sorted the names into separate piles, and the person receiving the highest number of votes was exiled for ten years.

The two stages of the procedure ran in the reverse order from that used under almost any trial system — here it is as if a jury are first asked "Do you want to find someone guilty?", and subsequently asked "Whom do you wish to accuse?".

Reminds me of something…

Comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECWWOMR3-gY

Yeah, I saw that a week or two ago.

Is it still a question if it's concatenated with a bunch of rubbish? "how" questions are tricky that way, I think, because they are particularly resistant to correction.

"The atmosphere outside my front door is not capable of sustaining human life, so, how can I go outside?"

It's like you can't possibly address the question without sounding like you're avoiding it and being contrarian.

doublepost (again)

mm. I had to take part in a referendum recently; the question was quite long and in the form, "Do you support the indebtedness of the state to the value of $x for the purpose of y?" where y was a long list of things to do with sewerage. I knew nothing about the issue, especially separated as I was from the state. I had a quick look to see if I could find out about anything about it but in the end just went with my blanket sentiment that sewers merit indebtedness.

My point is that at least one benefit of having a parliament is that we expect our representatives to be fairly educated in the matters which they are in a position to decide; public opinion is bound by no such expectation. I'm not saying to ignore the mob; just to give them enough information to make what they will feel is a decision they believe in. The people who bring up referenda usually know their stuff, but when a bill is characterized as an Anti-Smacking Bill, when Fama runs wild with omens that the police will be actively prosecuting light smacking, the voter might find themself a little confused when they find the question posed in a more even-handed way in the polling booth. Equal rights for adult and child in assault cases? oh... uhh...

Edmund Burke is still the best source for arguments for representative democracy:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/He_is_a_Member_of_Parliament

Good read. The thing that makes me reserved occasionally is the offence people take, supposing "they think they know best, huh."

To which the obvious response is "if you think you know better than them, stand for government".

To make it clear, it reminds me not just of referenda in general, but of the _order_ of the proposed electoral referenda.

Of course, didn't mean to hijack; just went with the latest referenda-type news item. What you said speaks for itself; hopefully the flaw in his intentions gains more exposure than perhaps only this humble forum: or has it already?

and perhaps I'm not so off-topic after all: if I am asked the question,

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

and considering my questionable conviction that not much at all should be a criminal offence in New Zealand but at the same time that children ought to have the same rights as adults, how am I to answer?

This is of course where Alyx steps in and tells me it's my fault, Travis, for having such silly unresolvable ideals.

You answer 無, and no, I haven't stopped beating my wife. (There's no such thing as a good smack, just as there's no such thing as good assault, and no such thing as good sexual assault).