5 ms·

I read this article and I still don't see the "why". It says "because there are big problems people want changed", this doesn't answer why you want to increase

I read this article and I still don't see the "why". It says "because there are big problems people want changed", this doesn't answer why you want to increase voter turnout. For example, in America, the will of the people only influences change when it coincidentally is aligned with special interest will. Every other time special interests are more influential than the voting public. This would undermine a theory that voter turnout is even a solution.

hnamazon123 10y ago
The successes of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would seem to contradict your thesis.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  It doesn't contradict the thesis.
  - hnamazon123 10y ago
    I suppose the lizard people do in fact support Sanders and Trump.
- LionessLover 10y ago
  It only changes WHO is elected, not what's going to happen. Which thus far only is fantasy and speculation. I remember the last time that happened - before Obama. How much "change" did we see? And please - it does not matter if one thinks "it's all the Republicans' fault", assigning blame does not change what the outcome was (is).
burkaman 10y ago
Is it at all possible that the will of the people could influence change more often if more people were involved?
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  No, a representative sample votes. A shift in the demographics of voters influences change.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    Do you know of any evidence that a representative sample votes? Even if that's true, I think 100% voting is a worthwhile goal, because it removes any doubt. If voting is already perfectly representative, then nobody should have a problem with this initiative, because it would change nothing.
    - cloudjacker 10y ago
      It is a waste of energy. Yes it is quaint that people actually fought for this right, now logically, you should realize this is unnecessary duplication of efforts, and you have suggested that there should be no problem increasing that unnecessary duplication of effort. Some people, and their entities, are more influential than others and will always be. The popular vote has limited utility. This observation has nothing to do with alternative forms of governance. This observation is simply that here and now, there are better rules you can play by than even caring about the popular vote one bit.
      - burkaman 10y ago
        Ok, I think we understand each other. If you know of some study that shows the current voting population is representative of the total population, I would be interested in seeing it.
    - cloudjacker 10y ago
      for evidence we could start here: http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics are we aligned on the understanding that representative sample means a reflection of the random population? As in not a representative proportion of all subsets, but just what you might see in a random place in the country. I mentioned to you or in another subthread that a shift in the voter demographics can effect change.
hackuser 10y ago
> the will of the people only influences change when it coincidentally is aligned with special interest will I'm not sure what this means: If many people support something, is that a 'special interest'? Or won't there inevitably be a special interest supporting the same issue? Also, do you have some research that supports this claim? I have seen research that lobbying's greatest power is to stop things from changing - i.e., to maintain the status quo.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  There is one paper worth reading, I was able to retrieve it from sci-hub: http://sci-hub.bz/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135308 http://sci-hub.bz/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135308 tl;dr The most effective lobbying groups are typically supported is heads of large organizations acting independently of the rest of the organization or actual people. Estimating effectiveness has challenges in an empirical study but here are our attempts anyway. There is another paper that shows the outcomes of public policy issues that stirred public interest. I want to find that one.

hnamazon123 10y ago

The successes of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would seem to contradict your thesis.

cloudjacker 10y ago
It doesn't contradict the thesis.
- hnamazon123 10y ago
  I suppose the lizard people do in fact support Sanders and Trump.
LionessLover 10y ago
It only changes WHO is elected, not what's going to happen. Which thus far only is fantasy and speculation. I remember the last time that happened - before Obama. How much "change" did we see? And please - it does not matter if one thinks "it's all the Republicans' fault", assigning blame does not change what the outcome was (is).

burkaman 10y ago

Is it at all possible that the will of the people could influence change more often if more people were involved?

cloudjacker 10y ago
No, a representative sample votes. A shift in the demographics of voters influences change.
- burkaman 10y ago
  Do you know of any evidence that a representative sample votes? Even if that's true, I think 100% voting is a worthwhile goal, because it removes any doubt. If voting is already perfectly representative, then nobody should have a problem with this initiative, because it would change nothing.
  - cloudjacker 10y ago
    It is a waste of energy. Yes it is quaint that people actually fought for this right, now logically, you should realize this is unnecessary duplication of efforts, and you have suggested that there should be no problem increasing that unnecessary duplication of effort. Some people, and their entities, are more influential than others and will always be. The popular vote has limited utility. This observation has nothing to do with alternative forms of governance. This observation is simply that here and now, there are better rules you can play by than even caring about the popular vote one bit.
    - burkaman 10y ago
      Ok, I think we understand each other. If you know of some study that shows the current voting population is representative of the total population, I would be interested in seeing it.
  - cloudjacker 10y ago
    for evidence we could start here: http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics are we aligned on the understanding that representative sample means a reflection of the random population? As in not a representative proportion of all subsets, but just what you might see in a random place in the country. I mentioned to you or in another subthread that a shift in the voter demographics can effect change.

hackuser 10y ago

> the will of the people only influences change when it coincidentally is aligned with special interest will I'm not sure what this means: If many people support something, is that a 'special interest'? Or won't there inevitably be a special interest supporting the same issue? Also, do you have some research that supports this claim? I have seen research that lobbying's greatest power is to stop things from changing - i.e., to maintain the status quo.

cloudjacker 10y ago
There is one paper worth reading, I was able to retrieve it from sci-hub: http://sci-hub.bz/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135308 http://sci-hub.bz/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135308 tl;dr The most effective lobbying groups are typically supported is heads of large organizations acting independently of the rest of the organization or actual people. Estimating effectiveness has challenges in an empirical study but here are our attempts anyway. There is another paper that shows the outcomes of public policy issues that stirred public interest. I want to find that one.