4 ms·

It is not about fighting. The job of your representative is to literally listen to what you have to say and take in that information to bring to the central mee

It is not about fighting. The job of your representative is to literally listen to what you have to say and take in that information to bring to the central meeting place. This is what you are hiring for. Indeed, they have to collate it with the information given from everyone else – it is not just about you – but it does include you. If someone comes telling you that they aren't going to listen and only shove through what they want, you know you've got the wrong person for the job. You want to hire someone who you can trust, not someone who is determined. If there is a bug, it is people being too lazy to show up to speak to their employee. No doubt it is easier to show up when you have more resources. Most things in life are easier when you have more resources. But that brings us back to questioning: Why keep up the facade if you don't want to participate in democracy? There are other systems. Democracy is not the be all and end all. It can work well when the people are ready to put in the hard work, but if all you can muster is casting a ballot (if you can even manage that), why bother?

ethanbond 3y ago
The answer is self-evident and I’m pretty confused by your confusion: because casting ballots are the best way we have to take account of the electorate’s opinions, and they specifically mitigate the exact dynamic you’re talking about. A person who can camp out every single day in the lobby of a leader shouldn’t have greater say in the direction of society than a person who is working 12 hours per day in a factory. To the extent that they do, it’s exactly a bug! At this point I’m not even sure what you’re arguing. Seemed to go from “democracies aren’t about mandates” to “people with more free time have more influence” to “in any world where people with free time have more influence (all of them), democracy isn’t the right system?” Sounds to me like just a convoluted argument for “I don’t like democracy.” Which, fine by me!
- randomdata 3y ago
  > casting ballots are the best way we have to take account of the electorate’s opinions, and they specifically mitigate the exact dynamic you’re talking about. The electorate's opinion is not static. In fact, the matters the electorate will be interested in largely won't even be apparent during the election cycle. There is simply no way for a representative to know what the electorate is thinking without speaking to them. Which is why their job is exactly that. > To the extent that they do, it’s exactly a bug! They don't have greater say, but they do have a say by being willing to show up. The factory worker who doesn't find the time to speak to his representative certainly will not have a say. There really isn't much way around this. The hired employee is certainly not a mind reader. > At this point I’m not even sure what you’re arguing. What leads you to b believe that I am arguing? What is the value proposition in arguing? Sounds boring. > Sounds to me like just a convoluted argument for “I don’t like democracy.” Which, fine by me! Strange that you would attribute feelings to the words on the page. What in this suggests like or dislike towards democracy – or anything for that matter?
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    > [Lobbyists] don't have greater say... but they do have a say... The factory worker who doesn't find the time to speak to his representative certainly will not have a say. Party A has a say, Party B does not, yet Party A does not have more of a say than Party B? Will leave it at that logical incoherence. Have a good rest of your week!
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Lobbyists are just people. They don't have greater say than other people who provide their say. Those who haven't said two words to their representative certainly don't have a say. How could they? Quite literally, you have to say something to have a say.
      - rcxdude 3y ago
        Lobbyists can certainly say a lot more than most people, on account of that being their job. That's the point. A factory worker may or may not be able to say anything to their representative, but they certainly can not say as much as the lobbyist. Now, what the lobbyist says may be counted equally or even less than what the factory worker says (though cynically I would say they could well be counted more: if they represent a donor, for example), but that doesn't make up for sheer volume.
        randomdata 3y ago
        In a democracy, it is the duty of everyone to make it their job if they stand by the democracy. You don't get to go work at the factory above talking to your representative if you have something that needs to be said. Lobbyists are just another layer of representatives for those who have chosen to pay to have someone show up instead of showing up themselves. The factory worker can equally assign a representative to talk to the lower-tier representative on their behalf if they find going to the factory is more important. Of course, you can opt out of the democracy and let others dictate your life. I did question why one would want that, though.

ethanbond 3y ago

The answer is self-evident and I’m pretty confused by your confusion: because casting ballots are the best way we have to take account of the electorate’s opinions, and they specifically mitigate the exact dynamic you’re talking about. A person who can camp out every single day in the lobby of a leader shouldn’t have greater say in the direction of society than a person who is working 12 hours per day in a factory. To the extent that they do, it’s exactly a bug! At this point I’m not even sure what you’re arguing. Seemed to go from “democracies aren’t about mandates” to “people with more free time have more influence” to “in any world where people with free time have more influence (all of them), democracy isn’t the right system?” Sounds to me like just a convoluted argument for “I don’t like democracy.” Which, fine by me!

randomdata 3y ago
> casting ballots are the best way we have to take account of the electorate’s opinions, and they specifically mitigate the exact dynamic you’re talking about. The electorate's opinion is not static. In fact, the matters the electorate will be interested in largely won't even be apparent during the election cycle. There is simply no way for a representative to know what the electorate is thinking without speaking to them. Which is why their job is exactly that. > To the extent that they do, it’s exactly a bug! They don't have greater say, but they do have a say by being willing to show up. The factory worker who doesn't find the time to speak to his representative certainly will not have a say. There really isn't much way around this. The hired employee is certainly not a mind reader. > At this point I’m not even sure what you’re arguing. What leads you to b believe that I am arguing? What is the value proposition in arguing? Sounds boring. > Sounds to me like just a convoluted argument for “I don’t like democracy.” Which, fine by me! Strange that you would attribute feelings to the words on the page. What in this suggests like or dislike towards democracy – or anything for that matter?
- ethanbond 3y ago
  > [Lobbyists] don't have greater say... but they do have a say... The factory worker who doesn't find the time to speak to his representative certainly will not have a say. Party A has a say, Party B does not, yet Party A does not have more of a say than Party B? Will leave it at that logical incoherence. Have a good rest of your week!
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Lobbyists are just people. They don't have greater say than other people who provide their say. Those who haven't said two words to their representative certainly don't have a say. How could they? Quite literally, you have to say something to have a say.
    - rcxdude 3y ago
      Lobbyists can certainly say a lot more than most people, on account of that being their job. That's the point. A factory worker may or may not be able to say anything to their representative, but they certainly can not say as much as the lobbyist. Now, what the lobbyist says may be counted equally or even less than what the factory worker says (though cynically I would say they could well be counted more: if they represent a donor, for example), but that doesn't make up for sheer volume.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        In a democracy, it is the duty of everyone to make it their job if they stand by the democracy. You don't get to go work at the factory above talking to your representative if you have something that needs to be said. Lobbyists are just another layer of representatives for those who have chosen to pay to have someone show up instead of showing up themselves. The factory worker can equally assign a representative to talk to the lower-tier representative on their behalf if they find going to the factory is more important. Of course, you can opt out of the democracy and let others dictate your life. I did question why one would want that, though.