3 ms·
I don't see that as a problem. If that majority of the electorate can't be arsed to pay attention then they deserve a true representative of that populous. Tr
by mbell 15y ago
I don't see that as a problem. If that majority of the electorate can't be arsed to pay attention then they deserve a true representative of that populous.
Trying to coheres the electorate into making the 'correct' choice is to say that Democracy has failed, your population is 'dumb' and now a minority has to manipulate the system to get a reasonable result. This all assumes that such manipulation is in good faith, poor assumption.
- JamisonM 15y agoA minority has always established and manipulated any political system that has ever existed in any modern nation to my knowledge.Tweaking funding rules or candidate disclosures is not admitting that democracy has failed, it is continuing maintenance on the inner workings of democracy. I believe that any political (and judicial) system that delegates authority ultimately has to have an element of good faith from the people that receive that authority. It is unfortunate that it has to be that way, but I don't know what alternative is available. In light of that I think that saying that the need to trust someone else is a "poor assumption" and thus negates any options for change may work as a rhetorical device to win an argument but it does not offer any way to make any progress. That makes such a position not very useful.