11 ms·

If both parties agree on something without significant contention, odds are a strong majority of the population also agrees with it. Which may or may not be a g

by beat 8y ago

If both parties agree on something without significant contention, odds are a strong majority of the population also agrees with it. Which may or may not be a good thing (see racism, history of), but it does suggest that this idea that a handful of opposition can affect change through direct democracy is wrongheaded. It might matter for issues where the parties are well behind the public (ie the War on Drugs), but most of the time, it won't matter at all.

boomboomsubban 8y ago
>If both parties agree on something without significant contention, odds are a strong majority of the population also agrees with it. For this to be true, you need a majority of the population to be well informed voters, which just isn't true. I'd be surprised if 25% of American's knew about a US bomb blowing up a bus of schoolchildren recently, and doubt a strong majority would support that bombing. Yet my vote does not matter on the issue.
- beat 8y ago
  And you want these willfully ignorant people voting more? Not saying it's a bad idea. Questioning whether you're contradicting yourself.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    I personally want more than two options, and I don't think the potential ramifications are more dangerous than our current model. I don't think the ignorance is entirely willful, either way I'll choose ignorance over malevolence any day.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> If both parties agree on something without significant contention, odds are a strong majority of the population also agrees with it. Not really, even on some highly salient issues. Universal public health care has had majority public support most of the time since the early 1990s, but the Democratic Party has opposed it (in favor of various complex public/private schemes with insurance companies front and center) as has the Republican Party. It's even less true in issues that are of extreme interest to a narrow group and low public salience.

by beat 8y ago

boomboomsubban 8y ago

>If both parties agree on something without significant contention, odds are a strong majority of the population also agrees with it. For this to be true, you need a majority of the population to be well informed voters, which just isn't true. I'd be surprised if 25% of American's knew about a US bomb blowing up a bus of schoolchildren recently, and doubt a strong majority would support that bombing. Yet my vote does not matter on the issue.

beat 8y ago
And you want these willfully ignorant people voting more? Not saying it's a bad idea. Questioning whether you're contradicting yourself.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  I personally want more than two options, and I don't think the potential ramifications are more dangerous than our current model. I don't think the ignorance is entirely willful, either way I'll choose ignorance over malevolence any day.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> If both parties agree on something without significant contention, odds are a strong majority of the population also agrees with it. Not really, even on some highly salient issues. Universal public health care has had majority public support most of the time since the early 1990s, but the Democratic Party has opposed it (in favor of various complex public/private schemes with insurance companies front and center) as has the Republican Party. It's even less true in issues that are of extreme interest to a narrow group and low public salience.