>This is essentially the "people are poor because they don't care enough to be rich" argument which yes is a valid target of derision. No it's not. Don't straw

>This is essentially the "people are poor because they don't care enough to be rich" argument which yes is a valid target of derision. No it's not. Don't strawman. > I do claim you're lacking imagination here - why haven't you considered the case of the single mom who is one missed shift away from missing rent - and by the way, if she misses a shift she just gets fired anyway? This is a good example of why it's so frustrating to debate this. You're engaging in creative writing and storytelling. You don't know any single mom who couldn't caucus because she was afraid to be fired. You just made her up to buttress your point. Are there working single moms at caucuses - you bet there are. Caucus are also organized and run by caring activists who are sensitive to constituent's needs - do you think they don't attempt to be as accessible as they can? Is that a major issue that affects a significant portion of would-be attendees? You don't know, you just assume it is. >Job hunting while homeless. The choice between "participating in democracy" and "having shelter" isn't an actual choice. No kidding it isn't an actual choice, because you just made it up and put it us a false choice. Homelessness is not dominated by people looking for work and unable to find any (and for some reason not having access to various social programs) and therefore being prevented from attending a caucus meeting. Chronic, long-term homelessness is almost solely a result of drug addiction and/or mental illness. >The reality is those people just wouldn't be represented by a vote. More making things up. You don't know that. You have a stereotype of working people and you're using your imagination to think of all the ways your caricatures of working people may be shut out democracy. But you don't actually know if this in fact a real problem or just something you think is a real problem. And why wouldn't they be represented well by their neighbours if some specific individual had personal commitments that prevented them from attending? I get why you're asking me to use my imagination - because you have no other connection to the people you purport to fight for. >A good democracy is a mail in ballot at home, guaranteed access to a free and open internet, with weeks of time before it needs to be dropped in a nearby mail box, so I can sit at my desk after work with tea while I thoroughly research before I vote. Says who?