4 ms·

> If shit like this bothers you It does. > write your local representatives and ask them to change it. Done and done. Here's the problem: my voice, plus the

> If shit like this bothers you It does. > write your local representatives and ask them to change it. Done and done. Here's the problem: my voice, plus the voices of all of those who agree, have far less of an impact on the beahviour of the politicians than Amazon does.

qudat 8y ago
Yes it does suck how corrupted people become when they wield power. It almost puts into question the entire idea of a representative democracy.
- cr0sh 8y ago
  > the entire idea of a representative democracy I think the problem is that our politicians, by and large, don't really represent us. That is, the "template" if you will, of a politician, tends to not fit what the general average person is. For instance - how many politicians are middle class? I'd wager that none of them are, for even if they were prior to being elected, after they are elected they would get a salary that is much larger than a standard middle-class salary. Instead - our representatives (mainly federal - state level is a different story, but there are analogies) all are of the "wealthy class" - not the middle class, which is kinda who you would expect to represent everyone (that is, the "average"). Note that I am speaking from a US-centric perspective, but I bet it's the same elsewhere. So why do we keep electing the same template of people to the same positions, and expect a real change? I don't know. Part of it may be the whole "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" thing. Part of it may be corruption once they get into power (that is, why would a middle-class person, upon obtaining a much larger salary that bumps them out of middle class and into wealthy - change that?). This is really the heart of the matter; it isn't that our representatives only represent companies, but rather that they don't represent us (that is, the average American) period - as people we can really relate to, that they can relate to - because of the wealth discrepancy. And it's not likely to ever change; I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't involve violence - and even if it did happen, how do you keep it from changing back (what incentivizes people to continue to stay representative of the people they represent)?
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    Congresspeople make $174,000 a year which, while more than most Americans, is certainly not outside the norm for senior-level professionals in a variety of "normal" careers. Plenty of people you would consider "middle class" make 174k or more. To me "wealthy class" means people who have saved enough to never have to work again, which is by no means certain on a 174k salary.
    - krapp 8y ago
      >To me "wealthy class" means people who have saved enough to never have to work again, which is by no means certain on a 174k salary. In most of the world, it very much is.
  - Faark 8y ago
    > I think the problem is that our politicians, by and large, don't really represent us. Not a native english speaker here, so I might miss a nuance. "Represent" as in "depict us" or as in "works for us"? It sounds like you would prefer to take random citizens and turn them into politicians. Wouldn't you rather have the best people working for you? Sure, understanding your client is necessary to represent (as in work for) someone and having the same background can be one way to do so. But just one way to tick one of many requirements. I'd guess the better question is how to elect better politicians. Money in politics and campaigning (tricky to solve) and FPTP voting leaving just two parties certainly doesn't help.
jachee 8y ago
I agree, with one slight correction: "...than Amazon's money does."
- unfunco 8y ago
  Amazon's money is a subset of Amazon, it doesn't change the statement.
skookumchuck 8y ago
Amazon doesn't elect politicians, voters do. For example, Hillary outspent Trump 2:1, yet still lost.
- kmkemp 8y ago
  1. Corporations typically "invest" in multiple candidates - I wouldn't be surprised if they funded both Clinton and Trump. 2. Amazon owns a major publication that directly influences voters. 3. Amazon employs lobbyists who actively work to change laws that will help Amazon's bottom line. 4. Amazon and other tech giants absolutely have the power and profit incentive to heavily influence voters for or against particular candidates. It shouldn't be surprising, then, that we ended up with two candidates in the general election who are extremely friendly to large corporations. Amazon elects politicians in a more substantial way than voters do.
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  In addition, she also won 3 million more votes and still lost. Seems a little bit more relevant here.
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    3m votes out of XXXm is not much to show for 2x spending. Secondly, both candidates spent their efforts where things were tight, not where the most voters were. Hillary's 2x spending advantage failed there, where it counted.
  - chriogenix 8y ago
    the game wasn't played to win the popular vote. if the rules of the game are different, the game is played differently.
- netfire 8y ago
  Just because Hillary’s campaign contributions were not as effective at persuading voters enough to win a electoral college majority does not mean that Trump (or other politicians) are not influenced by those contributions. It seems clear to me that businesses are getting a return in investment for the money they are spending in politics, otherwise they wouldn’t do it.

qudat 8y ago

Yes it does suck how corrupted people become when they wield power. It almost puts into question the entire idea of a representative democracy.

cr0sh 8y ago
> the entire idea of a representative democracy I think the problem is that our politicians, by and large, don't really represent us. That is, the "template" if you will, of a politician, tends to not fit what the general average person is. For instance - how many politicians are middle class? I'd wager that none of them are, for even if they were prior to being elected, after they are elected they would get a salary that is much larger than a standard middle-class salary. Instead - our representatives (mainly federal - state level is a different story, but there are analogies) all are of the "wealthy class" - not the middle class, which is kinda who you would expect to represent everyone (that is, the "average"). Note that I am speaking from a US-centric perspective, but I bet it's the same elsewhere. So why do we keep electing the same template of people to the same positions, and expect a real change? I don't know. Part of it may be the whole "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" thing. Part of it may be corruption once they get into power (that is, why would a middle-class person, upon obtaining a much larger salary that bumps them out of middle class and into wealthy - change that?). This is really the heart of the matter; it isn't that our representatives only represent companies, but rather that they don't represent us (that is, the average American) period - as people we can really relate to, that they can relate to - because of the wealth discrepancy. And it's not likely to ever change; I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't involve violence - and even if it did happen, how do you keep it from changing back (what incentivizes people to continue to stay representative of the people they represent)?
- umanwizard 8y ago
  Congresspeople make $174,000 a year which, while more than most Americans, is certainly not outside the norm for senior-level professionals in a variety of "normal" careers. Plenty of people you would consider "middle class" make 174k or more. To me "wealthy class" means people who have saved enough to never have to work again, which is by no means certain on a 174k salary.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >To me "wealthy class" means people who have saved enough to never have to work again, which is by no means certain on a 174k salary. In most of the world, it very much is.
- Faark 8y ago
  > I think the problem is that our politicians, by and large, don't really represent us. Not a native english speaker here, so I might miss a nuance. "Represent" as in "depict us" or as in "works for us"? It sounds like you would prefer to take random citizens and turn them into politicians. Wouldn't you rather have the best people working for you? Sure, understanding your client is necessary to represent (as in work for) someone and having the same background can be one way to do so. But just one way to tick one of many requirements. I'd guess the better question is how to elect better politicians. Money in politics and campaigning (tricky to solve) and FPTP voting leaving just two parties certainly doesn't help.

jachee 8y ago

I agree, with one slight correction: "...than Amazon's money does."

unfunco 8y ago
Amazon's money is a subset of Amazon, it doesn't change the statement.

skookumchuck 8y ago

Amazon doesn't elect politicians, voters do. For example, Hillary outspent Trump 2:1, yet still lost.

kmkemp 8y ago
1. Corporations typically "invest" in multiple candidates - I wouldn't be surprised if they funded both Clinton and Trump. 2. Amazon owns a major publication that directly influences voters. 3. Amazon employs lobbyists who actively work to change laws that will help Amazon's bottom line. 4. Amazon and other tech giants absolutely have the power and profit incentive to heavily influence voters for or against particular candidates. It shouldn't be surprising, then, that we ended up with two candidates in the general election who are extremely friendly to large corporations. Amazon elects politicians in a more substantial way than voters do.
akhilcacharya 8y ago
In addition, she also won 3 million more votes and still lost. Seems a little bit more relevant here.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  3m votes out of XXXm is not much to show for 2x spending. Secondly, both candidates spent their efforts where things were tight, not where the most voters were. Hillary's 2x spending advantage failed there, where it counted.
- chriogenix 8y ago
  the game wasn't played to win the popular vote. if the rules of the game are different, the game is played differently.
netfire 8y ago
Just because Hillary’s campaign contributions were not as effective at persuading voters enough to win a electoral college majority does not mean that Trump (or other politicians) are not influenced by those contributions. It seems clear to me that businesses are getting a return in investment for the money they are spending in politics, otherwise they wouldn’t do it.