4 ms·

Also, it doesn’t sound healthy to me to read news with the attitude that a lot of the bad stuff that happens is because you just didn’t research enough and vote

by baddox 6y ago

Also, it doesn’t sound healthy to me to read news with the attitude that a lot of the bad stuff that happens is because you just didn’t research enough and vote hard enough. The point of democracy shouldn’t be to blame the people for bad government policies and actions. It should be the government that is accountable.

evan_ 6y ago
many people are explicitly and intentionally voting for the bad policies and actions though, can I blame them for that?
- ctdonath 6y ago
  No. They think they're voting for the good policies and actions. We can legitimately disagree over the good/bad of policies and actions. Is instituting/increasing minimum wage: providing a livable income for those at the bottom? or denying jobs to those at the bottom (being unable to produce >= $MINWAGE)? Good/bad of the topic seems obvious, yet differing views are widely held.
  - notriddle 6y ago
    You're talking about subtle economic issues, when the original point was about people dismissing the pandemic as a hoax. One can be understood through the lense of conflict and mistake theory. The other requires a conspiracy.
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      I think that's a bad example, has anyone gotten elected over the corona hoax thing? Besides, "I would rather accept the risk of virus X than the inconvenience of wearing a mask," is a perfectly legitimate position for many viruses, and deciding which ones it applies to is the exact same kind of utility balance and value debate as any other policy choice.
  - evan_ 6y ago
    We all agree that it would be wrong to poison the reservoir. We all agree it’s wrong to pool our money to hire someone to poison the reservoir. If I vote for the mayoral candidate who promises to poison the reservoir, why should that suddenly be a completely morality-free decision on my part? Just because a lot of people made the same decision I did?
    - bickeringyokel 6y ago
      For the people that voted for the mayor it would be "morality free", because they presumably believe it's the right thing to do for some reason
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    I have spoken to people who have admitted their racist ideologies and motivations for voting. And I’ve interacted with people who knowingly vote for their own economic interests at the expense of society’s interests because they fundamentally believe they should take whatever they can get. The latter example especially takes place in local elections regarding things like zoning and local ordinances and work contracts.
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      >I’ve interacted with people who knowingly vote for their own economic interests at the expense of society’s interests because they fundamentally believe they should take whatever they can get. This should hopefully be balanced out by the fact that everyone gets a vote.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        It’s evidently not, especially since votes aren’t equal in the US since voters in certain states have more sway in electoral college than others. Which is how we end up with leaders that the majority did not elect.
        ctdonath 6y ago
        This is the United STATES, a democratic republic - not to be confused with a popular democracy outright. We recognize that in national issues, a few blocks in a major city should not be able to out-vote (and thus overrule) entire states having very different needs/interests. Issues which are appropriate for popular vote should be decided within suitably local jurisdictions. Without this balancing of "tyranny of the majority" vs "tyranny of the minority", low-population states would not have signed onto, and would not remain in, the overall federal system. In a country so large and with so much diversity (!), no region should be able to absolutely dominate another simply by having a larger population.

by baddox 6y ago

evan_ 6y ago

many people are explicitly and intentionally voting for the bad policies and actions though, can I blame them for that?

ctdonath 6y ago
No. They think they're voting for the good policies and actions. We can legitimately disagree over the good/bad of policies and actions. Is instituting/increasing minimum wage: providing a livable income for those at the bottom? or denying jobs to those at the bottom (being unable to produce >= $MINWAGE)? Good/bad of the topic seems obvious, yet differing views are widely held.
- notriddle 6y ago
  You're talking about subtle economic issues, when the original point was about people dismissing the pandemic as a hoax. One can be understood through the lense of conflict and mistake theory. The other requires a conspiracy.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    I think that's a bad example, has anyone gotten elected over the corona hoax thing? Besides, "I would rather accept the risk of virus X than the inconvenience of wearing a mask," is a perfectly legitimate position for many viruses, and deciding which ones it applies to is the exact same kind of utility balance and value debate as any other policy choice.
- evan_ 6y ago
  We all agree that it would be wrong to poison the reservoir. We all agree it’s wrong to pool our money to hire someone to poison the reservoir. If I vote for the mayoral candidate who promises to poison the reservoir, why should that suddenly be a completely morality-free decision on my part? Just because a lot of people made the same decision I did?
  - bickeringyokel 6y ago
    For the people that voted for the mayor it would be "morality free", because they presumably believe it's the right thing to do for some reason
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  I have spoken to people who have admitted their racist ideologies and motivations for voting. And I’ve interacted with people who knowingly vote for their own economic interests at the expense of society’s interests because they fundamentally believe they should take whatever they can get. The latter example especially takes place in local elections regarding things like zoning and local ordinances and work contracts.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    >I’ve interacted with people who knowingly vote for their own economic interests at the expense of society’s interests because they fundamentally believe they should take whatever they can get. This should hopefully be balanced out by the fact that everyone gets a vote.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      It’s evidently not, especially since votes aren’t equal in the US since voters in certain states have more sway in electoral college than others. Which is how we end up with leaders that the majority did not elect.
      - ctdonath 6y ago
        This is the United STATES, a democratic republic - not to be confused with a popular democracy outright. We recognize that in national issues, a few blocks in a major city should not be able to out-vote (and thus overrule) entire states having very different needs/interests. Issues which are appropriate for popular vote should be decided within suitably local jurisdictions. Without this balancing of "tyranny of the majority" vs "tyranny of the minority", low-population states would not have signed onto, and would not remain in, the overall federal system. In a country so large and with so much diversity (!), no region should be able to absolutely dominate another simply by having a larger population.