3 ms·

Democracy absolutely does not care about you and thinking it does is damaging to democracy. Democracy is just executing the will of the majority. If your intere

Democracy absolutely does not care about you and thinking it does is damaging to democracy. Democracy is just executing the will of the majority. If your interests don’t align with thah majority, the country is not acting on your behalf. Knowing that an participating in democracy without tying up your identity in the outcomes is critical.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
Well it does care about you, just that the level of care you receive is roughly what hundreds of millions of others also get. 1/250000000 is a pretty small amount in the grand scheme. We typically round down small fractions to zero so a very niche opinion with a few hundred folks is still approximately zero.
- kortilla 4y ago
  No, that math isn’t correct. If you are in the minority, there is no compromise in democracy. The level of care you receive is exactly 0 if the majority voted against you. 20 years ago you couldn’t have 40% of a gay marriage, it was just no gay marriage.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    People typically live for more than just a single issue. Averaged over many thousands of issues, some of which you end up enjoying benefits from and some of which you end up suffering penalties from, and after many years of residence, it does work out that way.
    - pksebben 4y ago
      it might. It might, if we didn't split votes by district, then by county, then by state, and bundle them. It might if our representation weren't purposefully skewed to favor states with let populations. It might if there were runoff voting. It might if there weren't an electoral college, circumventing all that already miserable voting procedure. It might if voting we're a national holiday. It might if we had a choice that wasn't "this pile of shit over here" versus "that mass of excrementt over there". Really, they're different! It might if, after the elections were over, there wasn't a whole industry, made up of politician's former colleagues, making truckloads of money to peddle influence on behalf of big business and billionaires. To believe that our democratic process does anything to connect the political zeitgeist of the people to actual policy is to believe in the tooth fairy.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Yes, the things you believe in are ostensibly 1/250000000th the importance of the sum total of what everyone in the U.S. believes in. For example, if the 'political zeitgeist' your referring to is comprised of 50 million eligible voters, and if the other 200 million are fence sitters on believe in another 'zeitgeist', then it's in fact correct for the U.S. as a country to completely ignore the 50 million. i.e. to block it from having any effect on 'actual policy'. After all, minority rights are only guaranteed up to the 3/4 threshold, after which a constitutional convention could do anything, such as reinstating slavery, prohibition, or even abolish the existing constitution and all laws passed by Congress entirely, etc...
        pksebben 4y ago
        You've sort of missed my point. I'm not pushing a particular political agenda, here. I'm talking about how many roadblocks there are between a vote and a policy change, of any stripe. The fact is, if we all agreed on something, it still wouldn't matter. The process of voting would not see that idea through to any meaningful realization - which sort of defeats the purpose of voting, doesn't it?
eyelidlessness 4y ago
> Democracy is just executing the will of the majority. Only if you’re a dictionary. Democracy as practiced routinely resists the will of the majority (eg attitudes towards climate, reproductive rights), and also routinely reinforces minoritarian protections once established (eg accessibility for people with disabilities). Democracy is ultimately the same thing as any other governing philosophy, except it’s more malleable by people without concentrated power than most other systems. Certainly more than a bank or whatever.
- kortilla 4y ago
  You’re quibbling over the layers of indirection a representative democracy adds, but it doesn’t fundamentally change. If the majority of people wanted to strips rights for those with disabilities, they would be well within the constitution to do it. > Democracy is ultimately the same thing as any other governing philosophy, except it’s more malleable by people without concentrated power than most other systems. Certainly more than a bank or whatever. Sure, but the point is that regardless of governing mechanism, the government is not acting in your interest (unless you’re an authoritarian dictator and even then there is internal resistance).
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    I’m not quibbling anything.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      Yes, pointing out the delay representative democracy induces as proof that democracy doesn’t represent the will of the people is quibbling.
      - eyelidlessness 4y ago
        You must have misunderstood my comment. Only one of my examples might conceivably be delayed. One is explicitly being reversed, and the other is protection of a vulnerable group regardless of majority status. My point isn’t that democracy fails to represent the will of the people. Democracy is more complicated than that, in some ways more flawed and in some ways better.

MichaelZuo 4y ago

Well it does care about you, just that the level of care you receive is roughly what hundreds of millions of others also get. 1/250000000 is a pretty small amount in the grand scheme. We typically round down small fractions to zero so a very niche opinion with a few hundred folks is still approximately zero.

kortilla 4y ago
No, that math isn’t correct. If you are in the minority, there is no compromise in democracy. The level of care you receive is exactly 0 if the majority voted against you. 20 years ago you couldn’t have 40% of a gay marriage, it was just no gay marriage.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  People typically live for more than just a single issue. Averaged over many thousands of issues, some of which you end up enjoying benefits from and some of which you end up suffering penalties from, and after many years of residence, it does work out that way.
  - pksebben 4y ago
    it might. It might, if we didn't split votes by district, then by county, then by state, and bundle them. It might if our representation weren't purposefully skewed to favor states with let populations. It might if there were runoff voting. It might if there weren't an electoral college, circumventing all that already miserable voting procedure. It might if voting we're a national holiday. It might if we had a choice that wasn't "this pile of shit over here" versus "that mass of excrementt over there". Really, they're different! It might if, after the elections were over, there wasn't a whole industry, made up of politician's former colleagues, making truckloads of money to peddle influence on behalf of big business and billionaires. To believe that our democratic process does anything to connect the political zeitgeist of the people to actual policy is to believe in the tooth fairy.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      Yes, the things you believe in are ostensibly 1/250000000th the importance of the sum total of what everyone in the U.S. believes in. For example, if the 'political zeitgeist' your referring to is comprised of 50 million eligible voters, and if the other 200 million are fence sitters on believe in another 'zeitgeist', then it's in fact correct for the U.S. as a country to completely ignore the 50 million. i.e. to block it from having any effect on 'actual policy'. After all, minority rights are only guaranteed up to the 3/4 threshold, after which a constitutional convention could do anything, such as reinstating slavery, prohibition, or even abolish the existing constitution and all laws passed by Congress entirely, etc...
      - pksebben 4y ago
        You've sort of missed my point. I'm not pushing a particular political agenda, here. I'm talking about how many roadblocks there are between a vote and a policy change, of any stripe. The fact is, if we all agreed on something, it still wouldn't matter. The process of voting would not see that idea through to any meaningful realization - which sort of defeats the purpose of voting, doesn't it?

eyelidlessness 4y ago

> Democracy is just executing the will of the majority. Only if you’re a dictionary. Democracy as practiced routinely resists the will of the majority (eg attitudes towards climate, reproductive rights), and also routinely reinforces minoritarian protections once established (eg accessibility for people with disabilities). Democracy is ultimately the same thing as any other governing philosophy, except it’s more malleable by people without concentrated power than most other systems. Certainly more than a bank or whatever.

kortilla 4y ago
You’re quibbling over the layers of indirection a representative democracy adds, but it doesn’t fundamentally change. If the majority of people wanted to strips rights for those with disabilities, they would be well within the constitution to do it. > Democracy is ultimately the same thing as any other governing philosophy, except it’s more malleable by people without concentrated power than most other systems. Certainly more than a bank or whatever. Sure, but the point is that regardless of governing mechanism, the government is not acting in your interest (unless you’re an authoritarian dictator and even then there is internal resistance).
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  I’m not quibbling anything.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    Yes, pointing out the delay representative democracy induces as proof that democracy doesn’t represent the will of the people is quibbling.
    - eyelidlessness 4y ago
      You must have misunderstood my comment. Only one of my examples might conceivably be delayed. One is explicitly being reversed, and the other is protection of a vulnerable group regardless of majority status. My point isn’t that democracy fails to represent the will of the people. Democracy is more complicated than that, in some ways more flawed and in some ways better.