3 ms·

>usual politicians Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but I don't think it's healthy for a democracy to talk about politicians with such a negative undertone.

>usual politicians Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but I don't think it's healthy for a democracy to talk about politicians with such a negative undertone. If there are too many black sheep, it's not the fault of "the politicians", it's the fault of the public for not voting for the alternative or being the alternative.

philipov 9y ago
That's a naive view of how democracy works in practice. It turns out that elections aren't an efficient market and the "will of the people" is instead dominated by externalities like campaign committees, advertising/propaganda, and lobbyists. You say you don't think it's healthy to talk that way, but that's backwards. People talk this way because the democracy isn't healthy.
- bjelkeman-again 9y ago
  I haven’t seen many good proposals for reform though. And I am not talking about getting rid of what I consider undemocratic processes in the U.S like gerrymandering, removing capacity to vote (closing I.d card issuing centres etc). But true reform in functional representative democracies.
  - casiotone 9y ago
    > I haven’t seen many good proposals for reform though. You're not reading the right colour books.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Tehnix 9y ago
> Maybe you didn't mean it that way I did, although Vestager is not as bad as the majority of the parties—I very much hate populistic politics, which politics usually are, except, luckily, for some outliers. > If there are too many black sheep, it's not the fault of "the politicians", it's the fault of the public for not voting for the alternative or being the alternative. Well, it is also the fault of the politician themselves for being a so called black sheep. They don't get an out just because they were elected in. Furthermore, I put my vote where my mouth is, but democracy is not really a suited type of governance when the majority of the population are not qualified to decide on a large majority of the decisions made. People vote with their feelings, as we've seen in the US. Sadly, it's the best we've got still, or I can at least not come up with anything better.

philipov 9y ago

That's a naive view of how democracy works in practice. It turns out that elections aren't an efficient market and the "will of the people" is instead dominated by externalities like campaign committees, advertising/propaganda, and lobbyists. You say you don't think it's healthy to talk that way, but that's backwards. People talk this way because the democracy isn't healthy.

bjelkeman-again 9y ago
I haven’t seen many good proposals for reform though. And I am not talking about getting rid of what I consider undemocratic processes in the U.S like gerrymandering, removing capacity to vote (closing I.d card issuing centres etc). But true reform in functional representative democracies.
- casiotone 9y ago
  > I haven’t seen many good proposals for reform though. You're not reading the right colour books.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Tehnix 9y ago

> Maybe you didn't mean it that way I did, although Vestager is not as bad as the majority of the parties—I very much hate populistic politics, which politics usually are, except, luckily, for some outliers. > If there are too many black sheep, it's not the fault of "the politicians", it's the fault of the public for not voting for the alternative or being the alternative. Well, it is also the fault of the politician themselves for being a so called black sheep. They don't get an out just because they were elected in. Furthermore, I put my vote where my mouth is, but democracy is not really a suited type of governance when the majority of the population are not qualified to decide on a large majority of the decisions made. People vote with their feelings, as we've seen in the US. Sadly, it's the best we've got still, or I can at least not come up with anything better.