3 ms·

> Actually all of them. I suspect you live in a bubble. Have you met many average voters?

by murbard2 11y ago

wazoox 11y ago
Quite a lot, and I try to and avoid the self-satisfying feeling of smug contempt or disdain. And I've met people pretty close to the highest level of command of this world, too. Therefore I feel entitled to compare them and I'm absolutely certain that the difference between the lowest pavement sweeper and POTUS is much, much smaller than the oligarchy wants you to believe. Because you know, that would mean that democracy, equality, freedom are actually possible. That the rich and powerful don't actually deserve any special treatment. etc.
- murbard2 11y ago
  It would imply no such thing. Voters do not have much incentive to make informed votes since the expected impact of their vote is very small. As a result, they tend to use their vote for signaling purposes, as a way to reflect the type of person they want to be, rather than based on what they anticipate the consequences of their vote will be. If voters are so astute and informed, how do you explain that they radically disagree on the consequence of various policies, and that their disagreement can be predicted based on their parent's politics? How do you explain that in polls, voters position align so well with the left-right axis? We aren't just talking about values here, but about a non subjective assessment of the consequences of policies. How odd that it would cluster in this way!
  - wazoox 11y ago
    *> Voters do not have much incentive to make informed votes since the expected impact of their vote is very small. True. This is called learned helplessness. But people can also learn autonomy, emancipation instead, given the possibility to make an impact. I'm not pretending that people are "astute and informed", they aren't; but they're definitely able to become so.

3 ms·

> Actually all of them. I suspect you live in a bubble. Have you met many average voters?

by murbard2 11y ago

> Actually all of them. I suspect you live in a bubble. Have you met many average voters?

wazoox 11y ago
Quite a lot, and I try to and avoid the self-satisfying feeling of smug contempt or disdain. And I've met people pretty close to the highest level of command of this world, too. Therefore I feel entitled to compare them and I'm absolutely certain that the difference between the lowest pavement sweeper and POTUS is much, much smaller than the oligarchy wants you to believe. Because you know, that would mean that democracy, equality, freedom are actually possible. That the rich and powerful don't actually deserve any special treatment. etc.
- murbard2 11y ago
  It would imply no such thing. Voters do not have much incentive to make informed votes since the expected impact of their vote is very small. As a result, they tend to use their vote for signaling purposes, as a way to reflect the type of person they want to be, rather than based on what they anticipate the consequences of their vote will be. If voters are so astute and informed, how do you explain that they radically disagree on the consequence of various policies, and that their disagreement can be predicted based on their parent's politics? How do you explain that in polls, voters position align so well with the left-right axis? We aren't just talking about values here, but about a non subjective assessment of the consequences of policies. How odd that it would cluster in this way!
  - wazoox 11y ago
    *> Voters do not have much incentive to make informed votes since the expected impact of their vote is very small. True. This is called learned helplessness. But people can also learn autonomy, emancipation instead, given the possibility to make an impact. I'm not pretending that people are "astute and informed", they aren't; but they're definitely able to become so.