4 ms·

In any democratic system the government exists with the consent of the majority of people. If solving the homeless is a priority for the constituents, they can

In any democratic system the government exists with the consent of the majority of people. If solving the homeless is a priority for the constituents, they can vote out the ruling government as punishment. That hasn't happened yet, indicating it's just not a high priority for most people living in SF. The gap between voicing an opinion and taking action is large. Of course voting out the ruling government might mean voting in someone they disagree with on other issues, but this is why single issue voters get more things done politically than their "wiser" counterparts who try to consider all the variables. It's the same with the various opinion polls that make headlines showing "75% of Americans want X, so why is the government still refusing?" The simple answer is far less than 75% are willing to base their vote solely on X, whereas the opposition often is.

nerdponx 5y ago
> In any democratic system the government exists with the consent of the majority of people. This is incomplete to the point of being incorrect. The correct version is: > In any democratic system the government exists with the consent of the majority of people who happen to have the time/energy/intelligence to research candidates and physically cast a vote in spite of various barriers to voting, choosing from among the small number of candidates who happen to be running.
- scottLobster 5y ago
  Sure, but so long as the democracy is still technically functioning those laws can be changed with enough support. Most of the barriers in place, whether they should be there or not, are not insurmountable. I guess I'm defining consent as "anything less than a desire for violent overthrow of the government" because that's the primary problem democracies solve. Things can still get bad to the point where in any other system a violent rebellion would take place, it's just that in a functioning democracy there's a bloodless rebellion at the ballot box instead of a civil war.
bobthepanda 5y ago
This is really a curse of the two-party system, although California has open top-two primaries so you'd think they'd be less susceptible to this issue.
- option 5y ago
  California has been single party for quite some time. Much like “united russia” in Russia.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    If different factions in a party can put forward different people who can make it to the top two, the open primary makes the point moot as long as they disagree enough. The religious and more recently nativist turns that the GOP has taken nationally have made them uncompetitive in California; it's notable that the last Republican governor of California was neither of those things while that transition was happening.
- Leherenn 5y ago
  Even multi-party systems suffer from this. You will never have enough parties to satisfy everyone on every issue. It's also worsened by the multiple years between elections, the feedback cycles are very slow, and too much is muddled together when there's an election. I would have said the solution is referendums, where the population can regularly vote on some specific issue. But as far as I understand California's "proposition" fit this, and they don't really seem to work.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    Referendums are flawed because * referendums, as a single-issue-only vote, suffer when an electorate is only thinking about immediate first-order effects, and due to how many issues are happening at the same time it's also very easy to get voter fatigue. WA has been through a few cycles for lowering car tab fees to $30, it ends up being ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court due to procedural errors, and in the meantime it totally wrecks budgets. But who would vote down a tax cut for themselves even if the final figure has no bearing on reality? Similar story with Prop 13 and all the nasty knock-on things it has caused. * referendums only represent a snapshot in time, but due to inertia it is hard to change it. Is Scotland going to get a second vote after Brexit? Who knows? New Caledonia is trying a third time in three years for an independence referendum.
dnautics 5y ago
> Of course... so, in short, it's not revealed preference.
- scottLobster 5y ago
  Depends on how you define "preference". Any number of people would "prefer" any number of things in a vacuum that fall apart when put up against the real world. That's not a particularly useful definition of "preference". I'd argue what people truly "prefer" is revealed by what they are willing to take action on.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    Many people prefer that china not torture uighurs, but they are, understandably, not willing to take action on it. Preferences are not 'revealed' by action because even if we were hyper rational, action would take into account expected success, which may be depressed by factors that have nothing to do with our preferences. I reject your operational definition of preferences. I Think most people would be with me on this one.
    - scottLobster 5y ago
      I'd argue most people would be willing to take action on it, they simply don't have to power to do so and can't be reasonably expected to achieve that power. Whereas people in SF who have voting rights DO have power over what politicians do about the local homeless situation. When a group has the power to change something but chooses to prioritize other things instead (which may be a valid response, depending on circumstances), it's clear that the group "prefers" the thing they do over whatever they might say. This is all a long-winded version of "Actions speak louder than words", or more in context: "votes speak louder than opinions". I reject your purely theoretical definition of "preferences". I imagine most people would "prefer" to eat and drink whatever they want, never exercise and still maintain perfect health. Unfortunately in the real worth that "preference" is completely irrelevant, and plenty of people (myself included) don't "prefer" health all the time for any number of reasons.

nerdponx 5y ago

> In any democratic system the government exists with the consent of the majority of people. This is incomplete to the point of being incorrect. The correct version is: > In any democratic system the government exists with the consent of the majority of people who happen to have the time/energy/intelligence to research candidates and physically cast a vote in spite of various barriers to voting, choosing from among the small number of candidates who happen to be running.

scottLobster 5y ago
Sure, but so long as the democracy is still technically functioning those laws can be changed with enough support. Most of the barriers in place, whether they should be there or not, are not insurmountable. I guess I'm defining consent as "anything less than a desire for violent overthrow of the government" because that's the primary problem democracies solve. Things can still get bad to the point where in any other system a violent rebellion would take place, it's just that in a functioning democracy there's a bloodless rebellion at the ballot box instead of a civil war.

bobthepanda 5y ago

This is really a curse of the two-party system, although California has open top-two primaries so you'd think they'd be less susceptible to this issue.

option 5y ago
California has been single party for quite some time. Much like “united russia” in Russia.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  If different factions in a party can put forward different people who can make it to the top two, the open primary makes the point moot as long as they disagree enough. The religious and more recently nativist turns that the GOP has taken nationally have made them uncompetitive in California; it's notable that the last Republican governor of California was neither of those things while that transition was happening.
Leherenn 5y ago
Even multi-party systems suffer from this. You will never have enough parties to satisfy everyone on every issue. It's also worsened by the multiple years between elections, the feedback cycles are very slow, and too much is muddled together when there's an election. I would have said the solution is referendums, where the population can regularly vote on some specific issue. But as far as I understand California's "proposition" fit this, and they don't really seem to work.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Referendums are flawed because * referendums, as a single-issue-only vote, suffer when an electorate is only thinking about immediate first-order effects, and due to how many issues are happening at the same time it's also very easy to get voter fatigue. WA has been through a few cycles for lowering car tab fees to $30, it ends up being ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court due to procedural errors, and in the meantime it totally wrecks budgets. But who would vote down a tax cut for themselves even if the final figure has no bearing on reality? Similar story with Prop 13 and all the nasty knock-on things it has caused. * referendums only represent a snapshot in time, but due to inertia it is hard to change it. Is Scotland going to get a second vote after Brexit? Who knows? New Caledonia is trying a third time in three years for an independence referendum.

dnautics 5y ago

> Of course... so, in short, it's not revealed preference.

scottLobster 5y ago
Depends on how you define "preference". Any number of people would "prefer" any number of things in a vacuum that fall apart when put up against the real world. That's not a particularly useful definition of "preference". I'd argue what people truly "prefer" is revealed by what they are willing to take action on.
- dnautics 5y ago
  Many people prefer that china not torture uighurs, but they are, understandably, not willing to take action on it. Preferences are not 'revealed' by action because even if we were hyper rational, action would take into account expected success, which may be depressed by factors that have nothing to do with our preferences. I reject your operational definition of preferences. I Think most people would be with me on this one.
  - scottLobster 5y ago
    I'd argue most people would be willing to take action on it, they simply don't have to power to do so and can't be reasonably expected to achieve that power. Whereas people in SF who have voting rights DO have power over what politicians do about the local homeless situation. When a group has the power to change something but chooses to prioritize other things instead (which may be a valid response, depending on circumstances), it's clear that the group "prefers" the thing they do over whatever they might say. This is all a long-winded version of "Actions speak louder than words", or more in context: "votes speak louder than opinions". I reject your purely theoretical definition of "preferences". I imagine most people would "prefer" to eat and drink whatever they want, never exercise and still maintain perfect health. Unfortunately in the real worth that "preference" is completely irrelevant, and plenty of people (myself included) don't "prefer" health all the time for any number of reasons.