4 ms·

> 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.

> 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.
      - rcxdude 3y ago
        Ah, so the issues in the system which make those without much resources much less well represented in deciding policy and those with lots of resources massively overrepresented are the fault of those who have less say, because they have moral failings which put things like eating and having shelter over participating in the system?

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.
    - rcxdude 3y ago
      Ah, so the issues in the system which make those without much resources much less well represented in deciding policy and those with lots of resources massively overrepresented are the fault of those who have less say, because they have moral failings which put things like eating and having shelter over participating in the system?