You ever tried to get a quorum of disinterested people? Most of the HOAs I've had to suffer through were created for the benefit of the developer and the people who wanted to dump them couldn't get enough people together to even have a vote for or against. Newer HOAs are not on your side.
At least where I am, the HOA exists to serve the developer until X% of the land is built and sold. Until that time, the developer has <= 51% of the voting rights and the board is run by a third party. There is literally no way to vote for or against anything that isn't in the sole interest of the developer. The land deed restrictions are time based, so even when you finally can take over the board, you can't amend the restrictions without a majority vote of homeowners, not just people willing to vote. Bylaws are almost impossible to change in large communities and it's just as impossible to oust the third party from the board, for the same reasons
For what's it's worth, these are POAs until the developer has sold off most of the land. After that point, you can establish an HOA.
> Democracy is not a contract with a homeowners organisation.
It's the same mechanism. The only difference is you agree to be bound by the rules of the HOA - contract rather than common law. The HOA is a direct democracy. It can vote to change the rules - you can give your input as a vote, but you're bound by the majority. It's the same system.
This. They have the strength of law up to the point where they conflict with local laws and they are rarely optional. I moved to a property whose restrictions expired 20 years ago and only one home owner wants an HOA. The rest of us just ignore his letters. The land is unrestricted, we have mineral rightS and when the neighbor's cows got out and pooped in my lawn, we laughed about.
> The HOA is a direct democracy. It can vote to change the rules - you can give your input as a vote, but you're bound by the majority. It's the same system.
Sure, democracy that works by majority (or majority party) or whatever makes sense for actual government. But my street is not a government, and devolving the sort of power to change rules and impose fines, liens or whatever on my house to the rest of the folks in the street, without even requiring unanimous agreement on the rules by all the property owners, is just nuts.
I would never put myself at the mercy of whoever I happen to live on a street with like that. I'm glad these things are rare to non-existent in the UK.
I don't think that democracy is not synonymous with a 51% majority. There's super-majorities, consensus, and unanimous votes.
A lot of people who strongly believe in democracy (real democracy) don't believe that 51% of the people should be allowed to impose their views on the other 49%. That can lead to big problems. They would say to keep talking, negotiating, and compromising, and that it you can't reach consensus then the proposal should not be passed.
Well, indeed it seems almost impossible to get a good "rules of democracy", but if the majority wants something and they don't get it, that's the tyranny of the minority, that kind of defeats the purpose of democracy. (It's easy to say that passing new motions/resolutions/laws require consensus, but if the current system benefits a minority that can block the new laws ... you have a problem.)
Obviously, on the other hand if 50% + 1 can do whatever just happens to be on their mind, that seems like a very-very bad (or good, if you are the more evil-er sibling to Satan) recipe for disaster.
...
And here were are. Extreme polarization, fight for survival, everything is up for grabs (voting rights, citizenship/deportation, budget, supreme court seats, filibuster).
Justice is hard. (Rawls' Theory of Justice proposes that what's fair is just, and it defines that as a reflective equilibrium ... which seems a pretty elegant solution - especially if you have spent too much time in abstract math classes.)
If a group of people can't reach consensus then the ideal may be to split into smaller groups, not force minorities to conform?
Nothing an HOA does is an emergency. Even if 2/3 of the people want to change the rules for parking, for example, they shouldn't get to screw over the people who bought the place without that rule and are vehemently opposed to such a change.
Scaled up to country size, like you mentioned, trying to get 330 million people to agree how the federal government allocates 25% of our national GDP turns out to be a big mess, especially when the slim majorities in congress change back and forth every handful of years. Maybe that's why the tenth amendment was put in place.
There are shared/common resources. Environment (air, water, wildlife, etc.) There are stuff that cannot really be solved locally. Simply waiting and trying to persuade each other is very civil, but it has a cost. (Yes, it's very-very-very likely smaller than trying to usurp control with violence, but not every region/country is as fortunate as the US.)
So? Nothing to stop them adding it in.