3 ms·

I think this is largely a meaningless claim. It is true that if you had some kind of consensus, you could elect anyone to office and enact any change of policy

I think this is largely a meaningless claim. It is true that if you had some kind of consensus, you could elect anyone to office and enact any change of policy. However, your ability to create that consensus is hampered by the electoral system. How do you get consensus from the electorate? You need to advertise and get media coverage. But the media is owned and operated by powerful people with a stake in the status quo. Especially in the US every issue is instantly polarized by the media. That way they can maintain a 2 party system, where nobody else has a chance to get a foot in. It's "Us vs. Them" all the way down. This means that in order to get traction, you need to convince one of the 2 parties to back your idea. Otherwise the media is just going to portray you as some kind of tin foil hat wearing moron. Even if you have popular support for your ideas, for example if you won a presidential campaign by saying, "Yes we can!" -- words that echoed throughout the world and won you a nobel peace prize... You really can't [1]. This link is from yesterday. I'm not American. I'm not Republican or Democrat. I don't have a say in this or any other issue. But I think you are being very naive if you think that either of the parties will sit back and allow anyone to gather enough support to do what you suggest. And even if you were able to do so, by some miracle, the odds would be seriously stacked against you. It is true that the electorate chooses. It is also true that the people in power decide what the electorate will choose. [1] http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/04/politics/guantanamo-bay-executive-action/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/04/politics/guantanamo-bay-ex...

mikeash 11y ago
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I disagree that this makes my claim "meaningless." In discussions in the tech community, I almost always see overreaching surveillance portrayed as the government going rogue and acting against the will of the people. The problem is that they don't listen, and the solution is to force them to actually do what the people want them to do. This is vastly different from a situation where the people actually do want the government to do this stuff. That's true even if that desire is manipulated. The situation informs the solution. The opinions of the American public are often manipulated and artificial. Fighting that is worthy and useful. But if you skip over all that and simply try to get the government to stop doing its own thing and start listening to what people want, you'll accomplish nothing.

mikeash 11y ago

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I disagree that this makes my claim "meaningless." In discussions in the tech community, I almost always see overreaching surveillance portrayed as the government going rogue and acting against the will of the people. The problem is that they don't listen, and the solution is to force them to actually do what the people want them to do. This is vastly different from a situation where the people actually do want the government to do this stuff. That's true even if that desire is manipulated. The situation informs the solution. The opinions of the American public are often manipulated and artificial. Fighting that is worthy and useful. But if you skip over all that and simply try to get the government to stop doing its own thing and start listening to what people want, you'll accomplish nothing.