This thread is for discussing politics, political science, and other politics-related topics in a general, non-country/region-specific context. Do mind sensitive topics, especially controversial ones; I think we'd all rather the thread stay free of Flame Wars.
Please consult the following threads for country/region-specific politics (NOTE: The list is eternally non-comprehensive; it will be gradually updated whenever possible).
- For Asian countries, see the following:
- For East Asian countries, see East Asia News & Politics Thread: China, South Korea, Japan...
.
- For North Korea, see North Korea
.
- For China, see Official China Discussion Thread
.
- For North Korea, see North Korea
- For the Philippines, see Philippine Politics
.
- For South Asian countries, see The South Asia Politics, News, and Analysis Thread
.
- For Southeast Asian countries, see Southeast Asia Politics Thread
.
- For East Asian countries, see East Asia News & Politics Thread: China, South Korea, Japan...
- For Australia, see General Australian Politics Thread
.
- For Europe as a collective whole, see European Politics Thread
- For Eastern Europe as a whole, see Eastern European Politics
.
- For Finland, see Finnish politics
.
- For France, see French Politics
.
- For Germany, see German Politics Thread
.
- For Ireland, see Irish Politics Thread
.
- For Poland, see General Polish Politics/Other Issues Thread
.
- For Russia, see The General Russia Thread
.
- For the United Kingdom, see British Politics Thread
.
- For Ukraine, see War in Ukraine
.
- For Eastern Europe as a whole, see Eastern European Politics
- For the Middle Eastnote and North Africa in general, see General Middle East & North Africa Thread
.
- Discussion regarding Israel and Palestine is banned indefinitely and their thread
was locked accordingly.
- For the Arab Spring specifically, see The Arab Spring
.
- For Turkey, see Turkish Politics
.
- For Iran, see Iran Discussion
.
- Discussion regarding Israel and Palestine is banned indefinitely and their thread
- For Northern Americanote ...
- Discussion regarding the United States of America is banned and its thread
was locked accordingly.
- For Canada, see Canadian Politics
.
- Discussion regarding the United States of America is banned and its thread
- For Latin America, see The Latin America thread (VE, BR, AR, CU, MX...)
.
- For Argentina, see Argentine Politics Thread
.
- For Venezuela, see Venezuela and the Chavez Legacy
.
- For Argentina, see Argentine Politics Thread
- For the South Caucasusnote , see South Caucasus thread
.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 25th 2025 at 9:51:19 AM
From what I understand, a successful boycott/petition requires:
- a focused, clearly-stated, achievable demand in a system that would adapt to it rather than calculate it'd be cheaper to ignore/crush it.
- a critical threshold of consistent, active participation such that ignoring it is impossible (numbers I've seen suggest a rough average of 5% of the entire userbase/market)
- favorable coverage by mass media (active supporters are pretty much always the minority because most people either don't know or don't care; if the protestors look like selfish Breath-Holdding Brats the general public will not be inclined to support them)
- sympathetic voices within the existing power structure help a lot, since they are more likely to have words that carry weight and understand how exactly a desired changed can be codified and implemented seamlessly.
Edited by megarockman on Aug 15th 2025 at 10:51:00 AM
The damned queen and the relentless knight.It seems that the biggest contributor to having a successful boycott and petition is having a lot of people involved who are actually supporting the cause. The difficult part of all this is trying to convince most of the population that the cause will greatly benefit them in the long run. But, there will always be a part of the population that will never support the cause, no matter how beneficial that cause can be for the country.
I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!Well, you don't need the whole country, or even the majority. But you do need more than are usually actively seeking out ways to do good.
My musician pageSomething else that they need is follow-through. A petition is a request by a population for a certain cause to gain attention. By its nature, it's not very impactful because it's more or less a polite request. Depending on the reasonability of the petition or the petitioned, it might be all that's needed to effect change, but usually not.
The follow-through to a petition is more involved political activity. Contacting representatives, going to town halls, voting for policies, etc. If that doesn't work, you turn to more drastic measures like public protests, activism and so on. And if that still doesn't work, you might have to go to the courts or in the worst cases, riots and violence may be the ultimate result.
Usually, whenever petitions or boycotts eventually lead to violence because none of the other options were working, that usually defeats the whole purpose of having petitions and boycotts because many people would stop trusting the idea of having petitions since they might think that petitions will always lead to violence, when that isn't always the case.
I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!
Have petitions or boycotts led to violence? Usually isn't it non-violent protests that turn violent due to violent or radical elements entering the protests, the protestors getting radicalised after feeling non violence not working or as a response to violent crackdown by state or the group they are protesting against.
One kind of boycott I still don't understand is parliamentary boycotts by elected representatives or opposition against some bill or referendum being introduced to vote on, since I think that just leads to the other side succeeding in passing their bill/ referendum. I don't think I have ever heard of such a kind of boycott ever working unlike economic boycotts or boycott by workmen/ state authorities etc that actually can work depending on the size by either causing economic loss or hampering state or infrastructure functioning.
It's a legal maneuver to prevent unfavorable legislation from passing by denying a quorum being present on the legislative floor. What proportion of the entire body is required to meet quorum depends on the rules of that legislature, but whatever that threshold is if there aren't enough members of the legislature present, no business can be done.
Abraham Lincoln once tried to deny quorum being met when he was in the Illinois Legislature by jumping out of the window because the doors had been locked.
Edited by megarockman on Aug 15th 2025 at 1:50:15 PM
The damned queen and the relentless knight.There's quite a few steps between petitioning or boycotting and outright violence. Petitioning is easily one of the most gentle methods of effecting institutional change, being about one step above giving puppy eyes and asking "pwetty pwease?" (more specifically, it's a lot of people doing that at once)
Leviticus 19:34![]()
Why not simply vote against it to avoid its passing? If you refuse to vote, that just gives the yes side less opposition to deal with and make it more likely it will pass. If the majority are for something, it will pass regardless of you voting against it or abstaining anyways.
Good to know politicians acting like unprofessional attention craving manchildren was always an aspect of democratic politics rather than something that has only become prominent in this internet and social media age.
Isn't this kind of approach undemocratic in nature then? Also what is the number of present representatives are required to pass a bill such that a minority of members can prevent passing of a bill by boycotting but couldn't prevent it if they had actually stayed and voted against it?
Edited by xyzt on Aug 17th 2025 at 12:38:42 AM
To be clear my intent here was to explain not to make any kind of judgment on the subject. As for the number. I'm not sure what you are asking for here. That sort of thing depends on the legislature in question. If you mean the example I meantioned. Yoon's party held near-majority of seats. So when almost all of them left whatever requirements were here were surely met.
So they could have gotten their desired result by just voting against the impeachment as well, due to holding a near majority of the seats. The two third majority required for an impeachment would still have not been met. What was the point of the boycott there then?
Edited by xyzt on Aug 16th 2025 at 1:30:16 PM
Quorum-busting also means no other business can be done in the legislature, not even other bills (which in a situation where quorum-busting is being used almost always means being unfavorable to the minority party). It's also a very good way to draw media attention because of the shenanigans that result (which might well be considered acceptable to the quorum-busters if they calculate it will help them down the line, say during the next election, even if their attempt to stop the motion itself fails).
Edited by megarockman on Aug 16th 2025 at 8:20:29 AM
The damned queen and the relentless knight.Certainly not when the legislature itself can compel members to attend by force sometimes, whether by locking the doors or sending sheriffs to find and arrest missing members by hauling them back to the chamber. As you said, it's out of the ordinary so whoever's doing the quorum-busting this way better be sure the media attention on whatever issue they oppose this stringently is worthwhile.
The damned queen and the relentless knight.The reason quorum requirements exist in the first place is to stop minority rule via midnight sessions (get 20 members of a 100 person legislature in during the night and jsut pass a bunch of stuff). This is especially important in systems that don’t have a clear governing ‘side’ that control the passage of things. Non-partisan committees often have pretty high requirements for them to be quorate so as to avoid shenanigans.
That obviously gives minority groupings a nuclear option of breaking quorum, sometimes they do it to draw attention, sometimes they do it because they’d rather nothing be done than let the thing they’re concerned about though, sometimes because they judge the people who got them into their positon will continue to support them. That’s actually the biggest risk, especially for elected positions, a lot of voters would rather loose playing fair than force a draw via ‘cheating’, but in an especially polarised society that feeling can go away.
Similar to quorum requirements are turnout requirements and associated boycotts. These don’t normally exist for general voting, but you’ll see turnout requirements on referendum (especially big things like independence or joining a regional union) and in the U.K. you’ll see them on industrial action ballots, the idea is to count passivity against the people wanting change and thus forcing a very high bar of support for them to do anything.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Can't an absence of a representative to vote being treated as a vote against passing by default, resolve the potential issue of a minority trying to pass bills in secret? That would make it necessary for those who want to pass a bill to have a majority present while also ensure a minority can't prevent a passing of a bill that has majority support.
Edited by xyzt on Aug 17th 2025 at 1:05:31 AM
It could, but then you’d hit issues where you have genuine absences amongst supporters for a bill causing bills to fail. If my party have 225 votes in favour compered to 222 votes against and two of my people are ill under a quorum system I’m fine (there are still 445 of 447 people in attendance and I win 223 to 222 on the votes) but under your idea my bill fails 223 in favour to 224 against.
You’ve gone from requiring a majority of votes to a majority of representatives, that screws over a lot of slim or working majorities by requiring an absolute majority for everything.
When you’re talking a big legislature things normally don’t come down to 1 vote, but most of these systems are designed for things like 7 person committees. I’ve even seen quorum systems based on representative strength (so in a vote of multiple connected trade union branches you need a quorum of representative for a specific percentage of the collective membership, so one big branch not attending can screw the whole thing but multiple small branches missing out is fine).
Your idea would stop midnight sessions and remove the incentive for the minority group to boycott and instead give them a massive incentive to block the attendance of members of the majority group. Instead of jumping out the window to break quorum I’m now incentivised to push the other guy out the window to switch his vote.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 16th 2025 at 9:41:07 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranNot all measures ought to require that someone be expressly for or against it. Sometimes a member is genuinely ambivalent about it, other times it's Damned If You Do Damned If You Dont to be forced to vote one way or another because voting either way could cost you public support.
Requiring a majority of the entire membership (rather than just those present or those present and voting) is already in use in some places, but are reserved for big matters or matters that affect the body itself. It caused the collapse of the Italian government in 2007 in a vote of no confidence there because there were 158 votes in support, 136 votes opposes, and 24 abstentions — maintaining the government required a majority of all members, and they were 2 votes short because 2 of their own members abstained.
The damned queen and the relentless knight.Personalist regimes are less effective at economic growth and development than collective ones
. Apparently this effect is even stronger than democracy vs authoritarianism - an authoritarian government with collective leadership can perform as well as a democracy, a person-based regime much more poorly than either.
(One wonders if this might explain why presidential systems often perform more poorly than parliamentary ones, in democracies)
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

A boycott needs 2 things to be successful: A large number of participants, and a sufficient duration. Well, there’s more, but those are the foundations. And much of the public just doesn’t care.
My musician page