3 ms·
IMHO, the core of the problem is that elected politicians are asking constituents in the first place. I elected a politician to represent my interests for X yea
by acabal 4y ago
IMHO, the core of the problem is that elected politicians are asking constituents in the first place. I elected a politician to represent my interests for X years so I can get on with my life. I didn't elect a politician so they can constantly ask me if it's OK for them to build Thing X, then Thing Y, then Thing Z...
I wonder how much more a politician could accomplish if they simply stopped asking? Like, do the job they were elected to do, and not constantly be going to the popularity poll, where it's going to be nobody but NIMBYs filling out 'nay' forms?
Just do it! If it truly upsets the community, they can always knock it down at the next election, right?
- idiotsecant 4y agoNo politician ever was embroiled in a scandal because they asked for too much feedback from their constituency. Expecting them to act counter to their interests is not very realistic, especially when you consider that the same NIMBYs who attend these meetings are the ones that vote in hugely disproportionate numbers. They might be a minority, but they have the time and the resources to use their political power and as such are very influential in modern policy.
- tcmart14 4y agoI agree and disagree. I think it is valuable to get input from constituents, especially on infrastructure, but it also doesn't need to be the sole dictating thing. I think getting input to be able to nail down the pros vs cons is reasonable. Especially since, in a city, the project may be in a part of town they are rarely in or do not live in. But for sure, it should not be the full deciding factor but a way to get a scope of the full pros vs cons. Then evaluate if the points brought up were valid, then finally if the pros outweigh the cons.
- mediaman 4y agoWhy not just do statistically valid polling? The problem is that politicians run this weird highly skewed sampling method of "community input" and then think they've got the pulse of the community, where in fact they've just heard from loudmouths with too much time on their hands. A statistical poll would at least show what the actual constituency wants, not the loud, bored subset. The subset problem is also why we see much more extreme politics in cities among elected positions that have less visibility: city council members tend to be much more extreme than mayors, because the latter has greater voter participation.
- bluGill 4y agoYou need to get a poll of people who will vote in the next election should this pass, and a different poll for people who will vote in the next election should this fail to pass. Note that different people will show up should this pass vs not pass, and it is people who turn up on election day that matter (show up means their ballot is counted, absentee ballots count as showing up) This is very different from statistical polling.
- mediaman 4y agoThis sounds like objecting to something much better than the awful practice today because it’s not theoretical perfection.
- solveit 4y agoAlso, politicians actually are supposed to represent all of their constituents, not just the ones that vote. There is no incentive to do so of course, but that is what they are supposed to do.
- bombcar 4y agoPolling is what you do to provide evidence to support doing what you already want done.
- xienze 4y ago> IMHO, the core of the problem is that elected politicians are asking constituents in the first place. Those constituents are the ones paying for said projects, so yeah it’s kind of important that everyone is on board before committing money.