4 ms·
... which implies there is an option on the ballot that has a hypothetical, "good", surveillance-free candidate. There is not.
by DocTomoe 7y ago
... which implies there is an option on the ballot that has a hypothetical, "good", surveillance-free candidate.
There is not.
- wsy 7y agoThat is again something the constituency can easily change. It just needs one of the many anti-surveillance voters to be willing to run for office.
- leppr 7y agoVoters don't vote on particular decisions, or even on decision makers for particular issues, they vote on one decision maker for all issues. How likely is it that an anti-surveillance candidate also happens to satisfy more than 50% of voters on aspects other than surveillance? Since surveillance is low on the list of priorities of most people, it's a rational choice for them to ignore the candidates' stance on surveillance while choosing their preferred candidate. As such, the stance of republican leaders on low-interest, non identity-defining aspects like surveillance is mostly unaffected by democracy.