5 ms·

"America" is not the jurisdiction, it's the 435 districts and the 50 states. It's the will of each of those constituencies that decide who is sent to congress,

"America" is not the jurisdiction, it's the 435 districts and the 50 states. It's the will of each of those constituencies that decide who is sent to congress, rather than a straight popular vote. National issues do not impact the nation equally, and the US's legislative body represents that fact. Deciding how we, as a group of people, live together is much more complex than, "Let's just vote on each thing!" A system like that is rife with all kinds of "wolves vote to eat the sheep" problems, to a degree much worse than any system we might have right now in the US.

mindslight 5y ago
If 60% of voters are in favor of legalizing marijuana, then legalizing marijuana is the will of the voters, period. The voting system limits the way the voters' will can be expressed, thereby making the outcome not reflect the will of the voters. If you'd like to make an argument that our national representative system weighs voters from different states unequally, I'm open to that. But that's the kind of thing that will generally get you a few percentage points, not 10%. Or translate the argument to medical marijuana which per that link is supported by 91% of Americans. That magnitude can't be explained away with weighting or quantization error. I'm very aware of the tyranny of the majority ("wolves vote to eat the sheep"), and would have included such a caveat that following the will of the voters is not always just and that it's an assertion to judge by simple majority, but that is not what we're discussing. Also on the topic of marijuana deillegalization, this isn't a majority wanting to aggress onto a minority and take away their rights, but rather a majority wanting to end such aggression - tyranny of the majority does not apply.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  > If 60% of voters are in favor of legalizing marijuana, then legalizing marijuana is the will of the voters, period. How do you know this? I'm sure polls have been conducted, but without stakes, and understanding of the consequences, of the downsides, of the costs, there's no way a random voter would be capable of executing a policy decision as complex as legalizing a drug. That's why they elect representatives, and at a national level the people have not chosen to elect representatives who have made this an important enough priority to create and pass legislation making this view into law. At a state level, some voters have chosen to prioritize this, by picking representatives who value this view over other views, and prioritize passing legislation. The system worked, for those people. The point here is that if your favorite poll were accurate, and did indeed reflect the will of the people, they'd prioritize it highly enough to vote accordingly. However, it isn't important enough to supercede other issues, so it remains not the will of the people. It's a lot more complex, figuring out what people want, than just asking them.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    > at a national level the people have not chosen to elect representatives who have made this an important enough priority > The point here is that if your favorite poll were accurate, and did indeed reflect the will of the people, they'd prioritize it highly enough to vote accordingly. However, it isn't important enough to supercede other issues, so it remains not the will of the people. You're essentially falling back to a simple tautology, shoehorning the "will of the people" to simply mean how they voted, even though a vote is an extremely limiting expression of a voter's overall will. This is utterly useless when discussing the effectiveness of our specific voting/representational system.
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      How is, "A poll on a single issue is not the same as electing an entire person." a tautology? The will of the people is (usually, always federally) expressed in selecting a representative, not in any single issue, and that's by design. "The will of the people" isn't, "Legalize marijuana" it's, "My representative figures out a way to sanely legalize marijuana while balancing thousands of other initiatives and objectives according to their urgency and importance in a way I would, overall, approve of." Very few people want chaos, so very few people are voting simply on, "I just want this done, regardless of the cost." I don't think you're interpreting these single issue polls in a way that's applicable to how Americans want the US as a whole governed, instead you're interpreting those polls to just mean what you want them to mean, because it's a useful thing to point out as a mismatch between expectation and reality. It is not, however, a mismatch at all.
      - mindslight 5y ago
        > How is, "A poll on a single issue is not the same as electing an entire person." a tautology? The problem isn't that you're saying they're different. The problem is that you're defining "will of the voters" narrowly, being equivalent to the result of an election. This makes your argument itself a tautology - if the "will of the voters" consists purely of how they voted, then of course the currently elected representatives are always the will of the voters. But if we're discussing how effective our representational system is, then your tautological definition is completely uninteresting. > The will of the people is (usually, always federally) expressed in selecting a representative, not in any single issue, and that's by design. "The will of the people" isn't, "Legalize marijuana" it's, "My representative figures out a way to sanely legalize marijuana while balancing thousands of other initiatives and objectives according to their urgency and importance in a way I would, overall, approve of." You're doing it again here, presupposing that a "voter's will" can only consist of what they can express through the current voting system, as opposed to what they would like to express when voting but cannot. My reference to a single issue opinion pole is precisely to show how voters' desires differ from their representatives' actions (with the assumption that pollees are representative of voters). If we use your definition, then the obvious "will of the voters" is to keep marijuana illegal, but this isn't saying much. Whereas using the broader definition, then we can talk about how the representative and plurality systems thwart the will of the voters by making them express their will in terms of constrained choices.

mindslight 5y ago

If 60% of voters are in favor of legalizing marijuana, then legalizing marijuana is the will of the voters, period. The voting system limits the way the voters' will can be expressed, thereby making the outcome not reflect the will of the voters. If you'd like to make an argument that our national representative system weighs voters from different states unequally, I'm open to that. But that's the kind of thing that will generally get you a few percentage points, not 10%. Or translate the argument to medical marijuana which per that link is supported by 91% of Americans. That magnitude can't be explained away with weighting or quantization error. I'm very aware of the tyranny of the majority ("wolves vote to eat the sheep"), and would have included such a caveat that following the will of the voters is not always just and that it's an assertion to judge by simple majority, but that is not what we're discussing. Also on the topic of marijuana deillegalization, this isn't a majority wanting to aggress onto a minority and take away their rights, but rather a majority wanting to end such aggression - tyranny of the majority does not apply.

TameAntelope 5y ago
> If 60% of voters are in favor of legalizing marijuana, then legalizing marijuana is the will of the voters, period. How do you know this? I'm sure polls have been conducted, but without stakes, and understanding of the consequences, of the downsides, of the costs, there's no way a random voter would be capable of executing a policy decision as complex as legalizing a drug. That's why they elect representatives, and at a national level the people have not chosen to elect representatives who have made this an important enough priority to create and pass legislation making this view into law. At a state level, some voters have chosen to prioritize this, by picking representatives who value this view over other views, and prioritize passing legislation. The system worked, for those people. The point here is that if your favorite poll were accurate, and did indeed reflect the will of the people, they'd prioritize it highly enough to vote accordingly. However, it isn't important enough to supercede other issues, so it remains not the will of the people. It's a lot more complex, figuring out what people want, than just asking them.
- mindslight 5y ago
  > at a national level the people have not chosen to elect representatives who have made this an important enough priority > The point here is that if your favorite poll were accurate, and did indeed reflect the will of the people, they'd prioritize it highly enough to vote accordingly. However, it isn't important enough to supercede other issues, so it remains not the will of the people. You're essentially falling back to a simple tautology, shoehorning the "will of the people" to simply mean how they voted, even though a vote is an extremely limiting expression of a voter's overall will. This is utterly useless when discussing the effectiveness of our specific voting/representational system.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    How is, "A poll on a single issue is not the same as electing an entire person." a tautology? The will of the people is (usually, always federally) expressed in selecting a representative, not in any single issue, and that's by design. "The will of the people" isn't, "Legalize marijuana" it's, "My representative figures out a way to sanely legalize marijuana while balancing thousands of other initiatives and objectives according to their urgency and importance in a way I would, overall, approve of." Very few people want chaos, so very few people are voting simply on, "I just want this done, regardless of the cost." I don't think you're interpreting these single issue polls in a way that's applicable to how Americans want the US as a whole governed, instead you're interpreting those polls to just mean what you want them to mean, because it's a useful thing to point out as a mismatch between expectation and reality. It is not, however, a mismatch at all.
    - mindslight 5y ago
      > How is, "A poll on a single issue is not the same as electing an entire person." a tautology? The problem isn't that you're saying they're different. The problem is that you're defining "will of the voters" narrowly, being equivalent to the result of an election. This makes your argument itself a tautology - if the "will of the voters" consists purely of how they voted, then of course the currently elected representatives are always the will of the voters. But if we're discussing how effective our representational system is, then your tautological definition is completely uninteresting. > The will of the people is (usually, always federally) expressed in selecting a representative, not in any single issue, and that's by design. "The will of the people" isn't, "Legalize marijuana" it's, "My representative figures out a way to sanely legalize marijuana while balancing thousands of other initiatives and objectives according to their urgency and importance in a way I would, overall, approve of." You're doing it again here, presupposing that a "voter's will" can only consist of what they can express through the current voting system, as opposed to what they would like to express when voting but cannot. My reference to a single issue opinion pole is precisely to show how voters' desires differ from their representatives' actions (with the assumption that pollees are representative of voters). If we use your definition, then the obvious "will of the voters" is to keep marijuana illegal, but this isn't saying much. Whereas using the broader definition, then we can talk about how the representative and plurality systems thwart the will of the voters by making them express their will in terms of constrained choices.