I listed the sequence of ideas I think leads to that conclusion, and the best you could muster is an unsubstantiated "you're wrong"? Imagine if every hacker ne

I listed the sequence of ideas I think leads to that conclusion, and the best you could muster is an unsubstantiated "you're wrong"? Imagine if every hacker news response was just a verbose "you're wrong." What low quality discourse. If voting has been ritualized and is not very meaningful, where does power come from? If wages are determined by the relative power difference between labor and management, how is a laborer supposed to increase their wages? Would you expect labors wages to increase without an increase of power first? What if labors power goes to near zero? If we wanted to stop gerrymandering, where does that power come from? If we wanted to stop Pelosi from trading, how do we do that? If we wanted to bring back the per-Reagan tax rates, how do we do that? It is about power. We can't get a government that represents us because we do not have power. Corruption in our government represents a lack of the public's power at large. We can't have public works because those works benefit the public at the cost of business. The government represents businesses because they have more power than the public. Businesses literally vote on candidates with money before the public at large votes. That's not a fringe idea. That is literally presented by Harvard Law professor and tech darling Lawrence Lessig. So you think it's a non sequitur because you haven't asked the question "where does public power come from?" "How does a relatively powerless person exercise political force"? "What happens if voting is more of a ritual than a meaningful choice?" Clearly it is a "sequitur".