3 ms·

I am talking about complaints with the elections of other districts. My representative fairly represents my district's sentiment. The policies we want are bloc

I am talking about complaints with the elections of other districts. My representative fairly represents my district's sentiment. The policies we want are blocked by neighboring district representatives - who also fairly represent their districts. The compromises tend to land squarely in between the extremes. If we're not happy with the compromise, the answer is to try moving the opposing side closer... which means convincing citizens of that district to change their mind. Citizen discourse is the core of effective democracies. Elections merely represent public sentiment - peer to peer discussions are how we change the status quo. America's problem is we seem to have forgotten how to talk about politics. Even your language reflects that... no suggestion of civil debate, just a false dichotomy of surrendering to the numbers game or "attacking" other citizens. Insults are an attack, but genuinely challenging beliefs is not an attack. My neighbor and I may disagree, but we aren't enemies - we are both citizens that want what's best for our family and friends. Talking politics is how we figure out what that means. Those discussions between private citizens is the decentralized process of moving a democracy forward.

slg 8y ago
I generally agree with what you are saying here. The "attacking" comment in my last post and the overall tone was more about the original comment that spawned this thread that used accusations about oligarchs holding cities ransom. I don't think that type of name calling is productive. I also wasn't attempting to setup a dichotomy between surrendering or attacking (although I can certainly see that implication after rereading my comment, sorry about that). I would consider civil discourse part of the "work harder to convince the politicians to change their mind" comment. You can convince a politician by talking directly to them or by rallying other citizens to your cause. However the discussion was about "blame" and "fault". I think those are very aggressive words to use against other citizens you disagree with. If we are going to use those words, I think they should be focused towards politicians who are accountable to your wishes. Your neighbor or the citizens in the next district over are not accountable to you and therefore should not receive blame for disagreeing with you.

slg 8y ago

I generally agree with what you are saying here. The "attacking" comment in my last post and the overall tone was more about the original comment that spawned this thread that used accusations about oligarchs holding cities ransom. I don't think that type of name calling is productive. I also wasn't attempting to setup a dichotomy between surrendering or attacking (although I can certainly see that implication after rereading my comment, sorry about that). I would consider civil discourse part of the "work harder to convince the politicians to change their mind" comment. You can convince a politician by talking directly to them or by rallying other citizens to your cause. However the discussion was about "blame" and "fault". I think those are very aggressive words to use against other citizens you disagree with. If we are going to use those words, I think they should be focused towards politicians who are accountable to your wishes. Your neighbor or the citizens in the next district over are not accountable to you and therefore should not receive blame for disagreeing with you.