3 ms·

Right, this system of government is obviously not working very well at representing the will of the people currently, nor has it ever. You can debate why turno

Right, this system of government is obviously not working very well at representing the will of the people currently, nor has it ever. You can debate why turnout is so low in this country for something so high stakes. The obvious things to reach for are the electoral college (where votes simply don't matter unless you live in a swing state) and the two party "system" (where you have to vote for an omnibus which will definitely have things you disagree with). But it's just plain rotten. The only people this seems to work for consistently are the wealthy.

euroderf 2y ago
> The only people this seems to work for consistently are the wealthy. Well, that's because they know how to invest wisely in lawmakers. Fabulous ROI.
- pas 2y ago
  meh, not really. maybe it's good when you are at that level. Jeff and Elon both spent a ridiculous amount, but arguably smart money like the Koch brothers are just making nice influence campaigns with a lot less, and of course the same goes for state-level actors. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...
coryfklein 2y ago
> You can debate why turnout is so low in this country for something so high stakes. Maybe because statistically speaking your individual vote does not in fact matter? And that's a principle that applies equally to the left/right. For every marginal non-voter in your preferred party you get to vote, there's a marginal non-voter in the opposite party that somebody else is trying to get out to vote. Put another way, we could intentionally reduce the sample size and mandate that only 33% of adults vote in any given election, and we'd reduce the statistical confidence in the election result very little. Any given individual's singular vote (which is likely nullified by the marginal person in the opposite party) just has so little impact compared to Atwood's $8m political contribution that it's a rounding error.

euroderf 2y ago

> The only people this seems to work for consistently are the wealthy. Well, that's because they know how to invest wisely in lawmakers. Fabulous ROI.

pas 2y ago
meh, not really. maybe it's good when you are at that level. Jeff and Elon both spent a ridiculous amount, but arguably smart money like the Koch brothers are just making nice influence campaigns with a lot less, and of course the same goes for state-level actors. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...

coryfklein 2y ago

> You can debate why turnout is so low in this country for something so high stakes. Maybe because statistically speaking your individual vote does not in fact matter? And that's a principle that applies equally to the left/right. For every marginal non-voter in your preferred party you get to vote, there's a marginal non-voter in the opposite party that somebody else is trying to get out to vote. Put another way, we could intentionally reduce the sample size and mandate that only 33% of adults vote in any given election, and we'd reduce the statistical confidence in the election result very little. Any given individual's singular vote (which is likely nullified by the marginal person in the opposite party) just has so little impact compared to Atwood's $8m political contribution that it's a rounding error.