8 ms·

People are going to lobby for the things they want. If they are targeting more money they will lobby against laws that hurt that. Feedback is important in poli

by mfer 4y ago

People are going to lobby for the things they want. If they are targeting more money they will lobby against laws that hurt that. Feedback is important in politics. How to reps know what their people want? What they need? The people of NC who care about this should organize around the issue and let their reps know what they think about it. Give them feedback. In mass, if possible.

DANK_YACHT 4y ago
The entire point of electing someone to represent you is that they should take care of things for you without bothering you too much. Imaging you hire a lawyer to represent you in court and you constantly need to petition your lawyer for changes to your legal strategy, or you hire a doctor and you constantly need to correct their course of treatment. In such cases, would you say you've hired a good doctor or lawyer? Why is it the responsibility of the masses to petition their representatives? Why isn't it the responsibility of the representative to understand an issue and reach out to possibly effected constituents for a wholistic view of an issue?
- kzrdude 4y ago
  On the other hand you should by no means let your doctor decide everything, you need to be your own advocate for your own health and weigh in on making decisions regarding risk and benefits of treatments.
  - DANK_YACHT 4y ago
    Yes definitely. No analogy is perfect.
    - shuntress 4y ago
      This one is still pretty close though. You need to be able to trust that your doctors guidance is genuinely what they feel is best based on their training and experience rather than a sponsored treatment they have been paid to prescribe.
      - kzrdude 4y ago
        I'm colored by just having heard https://www.numberphile.com/podcast/hannah-fry-orchid-cancer https://www.numberphile.com/podcast/hannah-fry-orchid-cancer which was a podcast episode about cancer treatment and choices - and it says, there's more to it than this. Doctors may not value your life quality as high as you do etc.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- _jal 4y ago
  The comparison to a lawyer or doctor doesn't work. Your doctor may have many patients, but they are not making the same decision for all of them. Same with any lawyer you retain. Your elected rep has to represent people with diametrically opposed desires. Also, you don't pay them directly and you have no principal-agent relationship.
  - shuntress 4y ago
    The comparison does work. In the analogy, the doctor's patient or the lawyer's client represents the electorate as a whole.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- mfer 4y ago
  An elected official isn’t just your official. They represent everyone in your district. Even the people you disagree with on something. This is a big difference from your analogy. They are going to listen to the squeaky wheel in their base.
jeffersonheard 4y ago
If you think that will work, you should check out the storied history of community internet access in Wilson, NC.
hitovst 4y ago
People of principle vote as intended, to defend individual rights. People who don't belong in the US vote for whatever else.
- ars 4y ago
  I vote to defend the individual right of people to belong in the US even if they won't vote for "individual rights". You have an extraordinarily narrow view of what things should be voted for - and to then claim that anyone who disagrees with you, doesn't belong in the US?
  - hitovst 4y ago
    >I vote to defend the individual right of people to belong in the US even if they won't vote for "individual rights". Those who don't vote are not the issue. If one comes to a nation based on principles of individual rights, and they are not activists opposing the individual rights, they're just confused, and should be ignored as long as they don't violate the rights of others, but they are free (despite their opposition to it) to stay and be confused. I made no claims about people who do not vote. I stated the truth; that voting is a mechanism to defend individual rights. There is no such thing as a right to vote to violate the rights of others. If you are for individual rights, than you belong in a nation based on the principle of individual rights, whether you vote or not. If you oppose individual rights, you belong least of all on a nation based on the principle of individual rights, but your "vote" is illegitimate and should not be tolerated, as you'd be a saboteur. Those who would be free have one nation on the planet meant for them. Cowards, tyrants, and willing slaves, have the entire rest of the planet to suffer. Those who oppose freedom don't reside in the one place meant to be free with good intention. If they just haven't left yet, they could easily find help leaving asap.
    - ars 4y ago
      It seems you are the one who is confused. The America you are describing does not exist. The idea you have, that people can stay as long as they don't oppose what "hitovst thinks is best" is pretty arrogant. > There is no such thing as a right to vote to violate the rights of others. Sure there is. I voted against a proposal to fund something I disagree with. I lost, and I have to pay it each year. You can vote to add a restriction on where someone can built a car dealership. You can vote to prevent someone from eating something he wants to eat. You can vote to prevent someone from leaving his house at certain times. You can vote to prevent someone from wearing an object he desires to wear. Like I said, the America you imagine does not exist.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
the_only_law 4y ago
Problem is I doubt most voters really care about right to repair. I’m sure if you picked someone off the street and explained it they’d say “yeah that sounds pretty” good, but at the end of the day, when they go to vote or when they engage in politics at all, they probably don’t care about whether a candidate supports right to repair, they’re likely going to focus on some popular issue, he that abortion, taxes, big foreign affairs, guns, culture war topic of the week, etc. They’d rather have a lame duck Democrat/Republican than vs Republicans/Democrat that’s diametrically opposed to them on big popular topics. Those get people to the streets.
- icelancer 4y ago
  People love all sorts of ideas that are "important" to them like right to repair, climate change, or anything else, but as soon as that person is wearing the wrong color tie and is against taxes/abortion/guns/foreign policy, then it doesn't matter so much anymore to them.
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    Yeah, I think this words it better than I initially did.
    - icelancer 4y ago
      A team effort, it was.
BitwiseFool 4y ago
>"The people of NC who care about this should organize around the issue and let their reps know what they think about it. Give them feedback. In mass, if possible." They already are, the problem is that the majority of the populace isn't affected and can't be motivated to care. The average voter is not someone who owns or operates farm equipment. What we have are two niche groups trying to affect legislation on a niche subject. "Feedback in politics" is rarely accurate and is prone to selection bias. There was an AMA for a congressional staffer on reddit years ago and they revealed that congresspeople have rules of thumb when it comes to estimating what their constituents want. Essentially, they judge online petitions as worthless, an email represents a single person, a phone call represents about 10 people, a mailed letter represents about 50 people, and a handwritten note speaks for about 100 people. The idea being that the number of constituents who care is higher than the number than can be bothered to contact them. And, the level of effort put in roughly lines up with broader support. Even still, the majority of their constituency is not at all engaged. I can imagine this rule of thumb breaking down for very niche topics. Of course, once people figured this out many activists started sending handwritten notes to try and sway the politicians by making the issue seem more important.
- icelancer 4y ago
  I've heard this: >> Essentially, they judge online petitions as worthless, an email represents a single person, a phone call represents about 10 people, a mailed letter represents about 50 people, and a handwritten note speaks for about 100 people. But I'm pretty sure all those numbers round to zero unless a check is attached, in my years and years of trying to speak to local/regional/state politicians in person, writing them, and calling them.
jayturley 4y ago
Unfortunately, even if the people care, and let their reps know, it doesn't really help. "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

by mfer 4y ago

DANK_YACHT 4y ago

The entire point of electing someone to represent you is that they should take care of things for you without bothering you too much. Imaging you hire a lawyer to represent you in court and you constantly need to petition your lawyer for changes to your legal strategy, or you hire a doctor and you constantly need to correct their course of treatment. In such cases, would you say you've hired a good doctor or lawyer? Why is it the responsibility of the masses to petition their representatives? Why isn't it the responsibility of the representative to understand an issue and reach out to possibly effected constituents for a wholistic view of an issue?

kzrdude 4y ago
On the other hand you should by no means let your doctor decide everything, you need to be your own advocate for your own health and weigh in on making decisions regarding risk and benefits of treatments.
- DANK_YACHT 4y ago
  Yes definitely. No analogy is perfect.
  - shuntress 4y ago
    This one is still pretty close though. You need to be able to trust that your doctors guidance is genuinely what they feel is best based on their training and experience rather than a sponsored treatment they have been paid to prescribe.
    - kzrdude 4y ago
      I'm colored by just having heard https://www.numberphile.com/podcast/hannah-fry-orchid-cancer https://www.numberphile.com/podcast/hannah-fry-orchid-cancer which was a podcast episode about cancer treatment and choices - and it says, there's more to it than this. Doctors may not value your life quality as high as you do etc.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
_jal 4y ago
The comparison to a lawyer or doctor doesn't work. Your doctor may have many patients, but they are not making the same decision for all of them. Same with any lawyer you retain. Your elected rep has to represent people with diametrically opposed desires. Also, you don't pay them directly and you have no principal-agent relationship.
- shuntress 4y ago
  The comparison does work. In the analogy, the doctor's patient or the lawyer's client represents the electorate as a whole.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
mfer 4y ago
An elected official isn’t just your official. They represent everyone in your district. Even the people you disagree with on something. This is a big difference from your analogy. They are going to listen to the squeaky wheel in their base.

jeffersonheard 4y ago

If you think that will work, you should check out the storied history of community internet access in Wilson, NC.

hitovst 4y ago

People of principle vote as intended, to defend individual rights. People who don't belong in the US vote for whatever else.

ars 4y ago
I vote to defend the individual right of people to belong in the US even if they won't vote for "individual rights". You have an extraordinarily narrow view of what things should be voted for - and to then claim that anyone who disagrees with you, doesn't belong in the US?
- hitovst 4y ago
  >I vote to defend the individual right of people to belong in the US even if they won't vote for "individual rights". Those who don't vote are not the issue. If one comes to a nation based on principles of individual rights, and they are not activists opposing the individual rights, they're just confused, and should be ignored as long as they don't violate the rights of others, but they are free (despite their opposition to it) to stay and be confused. I made no claims about people who do not vote. I stated the truth; that voting is a mechanism to defend individual rights. There is no such thing as a right to vote to violate the rights of others. If you are for individual rights, than you belong in a nation based on the principle of individual rights, whether you vote or not. If you oppose individual rights, you belong least of all on a nation based on the principle of individual rights, but your "vote" is illegitimate and should not be tolerated, as you'd be a saboteur. Those who would be free have one nation on the planet meant for them. Cowards, tyrants, and willing slaves, have the entire rest of the planet to suffer. Those who oppose freedom don't reside in the one place meant to be free with good intention. If they just haven't left yet, they could easily find help leaving asap.
  - ars 4y ago
    It seems you are the one who is confused. The America you are describing does not exist. The idea you have, that people can stay as long as they don't oppose what "hitovst thinks is best" is pretty arrogant. > There is no such thing as a right to vote to violate the rights of others. Sure there is. I voted against a proposal to fund something I disagree with. I lost, and I have to pay it each year. You can vote to add a restriction on where someone can built a car dealership. You can vote to prevent someone from eating something he wants to eat. You can vote to prevent someone from leaving his house at certain times. You can vote to prevent someone from wearing an object he desires to wear. Like I said, the America you imagine does not exist.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

the_only_law 4y ago

Problem is I doubt most voters really care about right to repair. I’m sure if you picked someone off the street and explained it they’d say “yeah that sounds pretty” good, but at the end of the day, when they go to vote or when they engage in politics at all, they probably don’t care about whether a candidate supports right to repair, they’re likely going to focus on some popular issue, he that abortion, taxes, big foreign affairs, guns, culture war topic of the week, etc. They’d rather have a lame duck Democrat/Republican than vs Republicans/Democrat that’s diametrically opposed to them on big popular topics. Those get people to the streets.

icelancer 4y ago
People love all sorts of ideas that are "important" to them like right to repair, climate change, or anything else, but as soon as that person is wearing the wrong color tie and is against taxes/abortion/guns/foreign policy, then it doesn't matter so much anymore to them.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Yeah, I think this words it better than I initially did.
  - icelancer 4y ago
    A team effort, it was.

BitwiseFool 4y ago

>"The people of NC who care about this should organize around the issue and let their reps know what they think about it. Give them feedback. In mass, if possible." They already are, the problem is that the majority of the populace isn't affected and can't be motivated to care. The average voter is not someone who owns or operates farm equipment. What we have are two niche groups trying to affect legislation on a niche subject. "Feedback in politics" is rarely accurate and is prone to selection bias. There was an AMA for a congressional staffer on reddit years ago and they revealed that congresspeople have rules of thumb when it comes to estimating what their constituents want. Essentially, they judge online petitions as worthless, an email represents a single person, a phone call represents about 10 people, a mailed letter represents about 50 people, and a handwritten note speaks for about 100 people. The idea being that the number of constituents who care is higher than the number than can be bothered to contact them. And, the level of effort put in roughly lines up with broader support. Even still, the majority of their constituency is not at all engaged. I can imagine this rule of thumb breaking down for very niche topics. Of course, once people figured this out many activists started sending handwritten notes to try and sway the politicians by making the issue seem more important.

icelancer 4y ago
I've heard this: >> Essentially, they judge online petitions as worthless, an email represents a single person, a phone call represents about 10 people, a mailed letter represents about 50 people, and a handwritten note speaks for about 100 people. But I'm pretty sure all those numbers round to zero unless a check is attached, in my years and years of trying to speak to local/regional/state politicians in person, writing them, and calling them.

jayturley 4y ago

Unfortunately, even if the people care, and let their reps know, it doesn't really help. "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...