Thanks for writing this! I’d like to better understand what you’re proposing. Is it one of the following?
Advocates should use negotiation tactics that help overcome veto players, while working within existing procedural constraints (e.g., YIMBIs should offer compensatory payments in zoning reform negotiations).
People should change issue-specific decision-making procedures to reduce veto power (e.g., YIMBIs should change construction approval procedures to reduce veto power).
People should change issue-general decision-making procedures to reduce veto power (e.g., people should change state legislative procedures to reduce veto power).
(I’m a bit confused because the examples you give seem to be tilted toward (1), which feels to me a bit more like improving the tactics of existing cause areas than proposing a new cause area. But I don’t know much about this and could easily have misunderstood / be missing things.)
Thank you for your question! I’m mainly suggesting 2. Some of those changes should enable negotiation to allow majority votes to bring forward development that would be almost inconceivable under current zoning systems, because of veto players. There’s a detailed example of a policy we are working on in England here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Aof6xs2jqfhEbJSxt/cause-area-uk-housing-policy
Thanks for writing this! I’d like to better understand what you’re proposing. Is it one of the following?
Advocates should use negotiation tactics that help overcome veto players, while working within existing procedural constraints (e.g., YIMBIs should offer compensatory payments in zoning reform negotiations).
People should change issue-specific decision-making procedures to reduce veto power (e.g., YIMBIs should change construction approval procedures to reduce veto power).
People should change issue-general decision-making procedures to reduce veto power (e.g., people should change state legislative procedures to reduce veto power).
(I’m a bit confused because the examples you give seem to be tilted toward (1), which feels to me a bit more like improving the tactics of existing cause areas than proposing a new cause area. But I don’t know much about this and could easily have misunderstood / be missing things.)
Thank you for your question! I’m mainly suggesting 2. Some of those changes should enable negotiation to allow majority votes to bring forward development that would be almost inconceivable under current zoning systems, because of veto players. There’s a detailed example of a policy we are working on in England here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Aof6xs2jqfhEbJSxt/cause-area-uk-housing-policy