Re: [閒聊] 一個詭異使用「民主」概念的文章

[guare (瓜籽)]

如果k兄本意是惡搞，那也請明說惡搞。不然有些不知情網友進來，可能學到錯誤觀念。
※ 引述《kevinjl (無神論者-無神得自由)》之銘言：
:   簡單舉例來說
:   班上要去旅行
:   班代說開始表決要去 xx山遊樂園 或去 xx村遊樂園
:   投票結果 多數要去 xx山遊樂園
:   這就是多數決
:   共識決
:    班代說 要去 xx山遊樂園 或去 xx村遊樂園
:    甲說 去溪頭 不一定要去遊樂園
:    乙說 去博物館 不一定要去山郊野外
:    丙說 遊樂園還是比較有趣 但是不一定 要去xx山 或xx村
:    丁說 對啦 對啦 去遊樂園比較好玩
:    戊說 xx灣比較近，應該也很好玩
:    已說 去山林登山健行 比較有益身心
:    戊說  要有益身心跟家人去就好了，遊樂園就是要跟同學比較有趣
:    庚說 對啊對啊 去xx山好了
:    辛說 我叔叔在xx灣是員工 可以打折比較便宜
:    .....
:    .....
:    最後投票表決
:    這就是共識決
:    如果認為這兩者沒有甚麼差別，這也不是甚麼錯
:    只是請給認為兩者不同的人 一個表決的機會
:    讓我們表決一下 要支持多數決 還是共識決

這個例子根本完全錯誤。

看看學者Lijphart原本是怎麼講的：
資料來源：http://wikisum.com/w/Lijphart:_Patterns_of_democracy

（節錄一）
    Westminster and consensus democracies differ along two dimensions,
     each of which has five elements

Wesminster democracy就是所謂的多數決民主方式，因為以英國為代表，故稱Westminster

（節錄二）

    The Two Dimensions of Democracy

    Consensus and Westminster democracies differ along two dimensions,
     each of which has five criteria. (Lijphart's earlier book,
    'Democracies,' used factor analysis to show that these ten
    variables do actually load onto two distinct dimensions.) In the
    list below, I write the majoritarian characteristic first,
    followed by the consensus characteristic. Each bullet is discussed
     in greater detail below.

    Executive-parties dimension

    In effect: how easy is it for a single party to take complete
    control of the government?

    1. "concentration of executive power in single-party majority [MWC]
    cabinets versus executive power-sharing in broad [not MWC]
    multiparty coalitions." (MWC means "minimal winning coalition"; is
     the cabinet just barely large enough to control a parliamentary
    majority (51%), or does the cabinet include more parties than it
    has to?)

    2. the executive (president or cabinet/prime minister) is dominant
    over the legislature vs. a legislative-executive balance of power

    3. two-party vs. multiparty system. (This is partly a function of
    electoral rules; see Cox 1997.)

    4. pluralistic first-past-the-post electoral rules (which lead to
    disproportionate results) vs. proportional representation (PR)

    5. pluralist (i.e. atomistic) interest groups vs. "'corporatist'
    interest group systems aimed at compromise and concertation"


    Federal-unitary dimension

    In effect: once your party controls the government, how much can
    you change policy? Are there mechanisms to preserve the minority's
     voice/rights?

    1. unitary vs. federal/decentralized structure

    2. unicameral vs. bicameral legislature (with two "equally strong but
     differently constituted houses")

    3. flexible, easily amended (or non-existent) constitutions vs.
    rigid, supermajority-amended constitutions

    4. legislatures determine constitutionality of own legislation vs.
    judicial review of constitutionality by an independent court

    5. executive control of central bank vs. central bank independence

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 140.123.185.72
推 valepiy:略過得可能性很高XDDDDD
推 monopoliest:感謝提供資料，正在閱讀
→ Pissaro:共識決只要記得少數的否決權利就好了，不
→ Pissaro:過共識決國家是有先決條件的
→ Pissaro:至於文中的兩大面項十大差異也不難，只要
→ Pissaro:記住能制衡立法權的制度就是共識決那一面
→ Pissaro:因為英國的西敏寺模型就是行政立法合一國
→ Pissaro:會至上
推 twhma:如果用投票來決定共識,搞不好每年都要重投