4 ms·

I agree that the lack of nuance and effective choice sucks in politics, but the root of the issue is that inevitably each individual vote is all-or-nothing for

by jacobn 3y ago

I agree that the lack of nuance and effective choice sucks in politics, but the root of the issue is that inevitably each individual vote is all-or-nothing for that politician's or party's agenda. In our everyday life we have plenty of options for most basic purchases, and can pick-and-choose whatever combination of goods/services we want (though there are of course market failures, but let's not get sidetracked). Imagine if you could only pick either prepackaged life choices A or prepackaged life choices B? It would be a dystopian hell (and only marginally improved by additional packages). Yet that's what we've got when it comes to politics.

SomewhatLikely 3y ago
There's a big difference that your life choices mostly only affect you. Governments specifically are focused on issues that affect lots of people. If everyone only votes for a candidate whose views perfectly match their own they'd only have one candidate they can vote on: themselves. At the end of the day the government has to make a decision that hopefully reflects as close to consensus as we can get. You could get there with direct democracy, or representative democracy where the representatives reflect proportions of their views in the public. I'm not sure we can get there when our representative has to simultaneously reflect the views of everyone in a localized region. Across the country there may be enough vegans for instance to have their own representative but in any particular district they will never have enough numbers to have their concerns addressed.
- GloomyBoots 3y ago
  > I'm not sure we can get there when our representative has to simultaneously reflect the views of everyone in a localized region. They are meant to represent the general sentiment of their communities, not every person’s individual concerns. Most communities aren't starkly divided on major issues, and when they are it’s usually a sign that you’re not actually dealing with a single community in any meaningful sense of the word, but two or more that have been thrown together politically. You can even fairly reliably map out which neighborhoods go which way on a given issue and it’s usually not difficult to parse out deeper cultural differences at play. > Across the country there may be enough vegans for instance to have their own representative but in any particular district they will never have enough numbers to have their concerns addressed. I’m not sure if you’re saying this is good or bad. They may be related by virtue of being vegan, but their communities are not vegan. You aren’t owed a representative because you’re part of a fringe subculture that doesn’t even have the political will to actually coalesce into a real community.

by jacobn 3y ago

SomewhatLikely 3y ago

There's a big difference that your life choices mostly only affect you. Governments specifically are focused on issues that affect lots of people. If everyone only votes for a candidate whose views perfectly match their own they'd only have one candidate they can vote on: themselves. At the end of the day the government has to make a decision that hopefully reflects as close to consensus as we can get. You could get there with direct democracy, or representative democracy where the representatives reflect proportions of their views in the public. I'm not sure we can get there when our representative has to simultaneously reflect the views of everyone in a localized region. Across the country there may be enough vegans for instance to have their own representative but in any particular district they will never have enough numbers to have their concerns addressed.

GloomyBoots 3y ago
> I'm not sure we can get there when our representative has to simultaneously reflect the views of everyone in a localized region. They are meant to represent the general sentiment of their communities, not every person’s individual concerns. Most communities aren't starkly divided on major issues, and when they are it’s usually a sign that you’re not actually dealing with a single community in any meaningful sense of the word, but two or more that have been thrown together politically. You can even fairly reliably map out which neighborhoods go which way on a given issue and it’s usually not difficult to parse out deeper cultural differences at play. > Across the country there may be enough vegans for instance to have their own representative but in any particular district they will never have enough numbers to have their concerns addressed. I’m not sure if you’re saying this is good or bad. They may be related by virtue of being vegan, but their communities are not vegan. You aren’t owed a representative because you’re part of a fringe subculture that doesn’t even have the political will to actually coalesce into a real community.