3 ms·

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

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?

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?