3 ms·

Your arguments boil down to people being either uninformed, or of insufficient capacity, to participate in "the game" We could simplify that to: they don't kno

Your arguments boil down to people being either uninformed, or of insufficient capacity, to participate in "the game" We could simplify that to: they don't know how it works. If you want to take a minute and get better clarity on our lack of a basis for the other discussion, I'm good with that. There is what you said, in the literal sense, and there's what it means. All I can communicate to you is how I take that meaning. As for troll, and any other personal judgments, I tend to avoid those. Finally, the way I see it is simple: people can participate, and should have a voice in the democracy. There should be few limits on that, in fact the minimum possible, none ideally. They would also benefit significantly, in light of the very strong influence of money on policy and politics right now, with improved ability to work together, understand one another better, find solidarity, and make that participation more than symbolic. They are more than capable of sharing their life stories, policy preferences, needs, and other things same as anyone else.

giantg2 6y ago
"...in light of the very strong influence of money on policy and politics right now..." This is an example of what I'm talking about. The reason the money is influential is because some people are naive and listen to the advertising/campaigning, which often misrepresents facts or only tells one side. "There should be few limits on that..." I'm not discussing limits, other than a basic citizenship test which all non-birthright citizens already take. The majority of this should be handled in schools. There's really no reason not to have the test. "They are more than capable of sharing their life stories, policy preferences, needs, and other things same as anyone else." Not if they are being manipulated because they don't understand the system or investigate claims. Then you end up with policies built off of lies and misrepresentation. If you want an example, look at the PA ballot question from a few years ago about retirement age for judges. They manipulated people by rewording the question. The integrity of the system and the strength of the country is dependent upon knowledge citizens in a democracy. To make this clearer to you, here's another example. Why is consensual sex with a minor a crime? It's because the minor is consider to be incapable of comprehending the totality of the situation and giving informed consent. The same can be true of electing people. How can you give your informed consent for a person to represent you on issues if you don't even understand the basics of it? This undermines the general public's right to be governed by a fair and effective system.
- ddingus 6y ago
  Attorneys do that all the time; namely, represent people who lack understanding. This is not a matter of clarity. You were clear early on and haven't really added anything new. We see this very differently. That difference renders the other elements of discussion unproductive. Anything else?
  - giantg2 6y ago
    "Attorneys do that all the time; namely, represent people who lack understanding." For large sums of money. They are also held to higher professional conduct standards than politicians. They also only need to represent the best interests of the client. This also involves detailed explanations of the issue at hand (hey look, the education I was talking about) so that the client can make an informed decision.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      So now the elected representatives cannot represent, because they are not expected to? Does this not make it very unlikely for any person to actually make an informed decision? Next move is money in politics, who do the politicians actually work for and why do they work that way? You wrote it above, large sums of money. What's an ordinary person to do but conclude they are not getting good, or even reasonable representation? (And they aren't overall) What do they do to combat that? I can assure you taking some test is not the answer here. At. All.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        "So now the elected representatives cannot represent, because they are not expected to? Does this not make it very unlikely for any person to actually make an informed decision?" You really have a habit of going off on some random tangent and misrepresentating what was said. The dynamic is different. You have a 1 to 1 vs a 1 to n (thousands to millions). This allows lawyers, the example you brought up, to interact in a meaningful and even educational way. The rules of professional conduct are also different, allowing politicians to do things lawyers cannot. If the people are educated, then they can recognize when they are being misrepresented and the steps to take to correct it. This might involve adding better candidates to the ballot or looking outside of the traditional 2 parties. It's not the test, it's the education of the people. Passing some rule, as you suggest, isn't going to fix anything. It's not likely that the representatives will legislate away that source of funding without adding loopholes that benefit the party in power. Your plan depends on the same corrupt power hungry people to somehow oversee themselves and remove a source of their own power. So how do you see that actually working? Spoiler - it doesn't.

giantg2 6y ago

"...in light of the very strong influence of money on policy and politics right now..." This is an example of what I'm talking about. The reason the money is influential is because some people are naive and listen to the advertising/campaigning, which often misrepresents facts or only tells one side. "There should be few limits on that..." I'm not discussing limits, other than a basic citizenship test which all non-birthright citizens already take. The majority of this should be handled in schools. There's really no reason not to have the test. "They are more than capable of sharing their life stories, policy preferences, needs, and other things same as anyone else." Not if they are being manipulated because they don't understand the system or investigate claims. Then you end up with policies built off of lies and misrepresentation. If you want an example, look at the PA ballot question from a few years ago about retirement age for judges. They manipulated people by rewording the question. The integrity of the system and the strength of the country is dependent upon knowledge citizens in a democracy. To make this clearer to you, here's another example. Why is consensual sex with a minor a crime? It's because the minor is consider to be incapable of comprehending the totality of the situation and giving informed consent. The same can be true of electing people. How can you give your informed consent for a person to represent you on issues if you don't even understand the basics of it? This undermines the general public's right to be governed by a fair and effective system.

ddingus 6y ago
Attorneys do that all the time; namely, represent people who lack understanding. This is not a matter of clarity. You were clear early on and haven't really added anything new. We see this very differently. That difference renders the other elements of discussion unproductive. Anything else?
- giantg2 6y ago
  "Attorneys do that all the time; namely, represent people who lack understanding." For large sums of money. They are also held to higher professional conduct standards than politicians. They also only need to represent the best interests of the client. This also involves detailed explanations of the issue at hand (hey look, the education I was talking about) so that the client can make an informed decision.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    So now the elected representatives cannot represent, because they are not expected to? Does this not make it very unlikely for any person to actually make an informed decision? Next move is money in politics, who do the politicians actually work for and why do they work that way? You wrote it above, large sums of money. What's an ordinary person to do but conclude they are not getting good, or even reasonable representation? (And they aren't overall) What do they do to combat that? I can assure you taking some test is not the answer here. At. All.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      "So now the elected representatives cannot represent, because they are not expected to? Does this not make it very unlikely for any person to actually make an informed decision?" You really have a habit of going off on some random tangent and misrepresentating what was said. The dynamic is different. You have a 1 to 1 vs a 1 to n (thousands to millions). This allows lawyers, the example you brought up, to interact in a meaningful and even educational way. The rules of professional conduct are also different, allowing politicians to do things lawyers cannot. If the people are educated, then they can recognize when they are being misrepresented and the steps to take to correct it. This might involve adding better candidates to the ballot or looking outside of the traditional 2 parties. It's not the test, it's the education of the people. Passing some rule, as you suggest, isn't going to fix anything. It's not likely that the representatives will legislate away that source of funding without adding loopholes that benefit the party in power. Your plan depends on the same corrupt power hungry people to somehow oversee themselves and remove a source of their own power. So how do you see that actually working? Spoiler - it doesn't.