8 ms·

I'm curious which country you reside in where congress does the will of the people because I'm in the US and that's definitely not true here. EDIT: Getting a l

I'm curious which country you reside in where congress does the will of the people because I'm in the US and that's definitely not true here. EDIT: Getting a lot of hate on this comment so allow me to clarify what I meant. In the US we have a Constitutional Republic meaning elected representatives write the laws. People are not voting directly on laws and issues (on a federal level). The parent comment said that "The People decided this" but that's not an accurate statement. Congress decided this regardless of what people actually wanted. In fact, the public was largely divided on whether they wanted a Federal reserve during this time.

9question1 2y ago
You greatly overestimate the quality of the will of the people. Just because you don't like certain outcomes because they are stupid doesn't mean that those outcomes aren't what people wanted. Democratic institutions are a much more accurate way of reflecting the will of the people than most other attempts to measure that, for many reasons including the existence of people who don't respond to surveys but vote.
- greenavocado 2y ago
  Democratic institutions can be subverted with first past the post voting systems and the illusion of choice amongst the most vocal and well funded parties
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    You know what the technical term for a subverted democracy is? "Democracy." Also known as, "Five people with an IQ of 90 outvoting four people with an IQ of 110," or "One person in Iowa canceling two votes in California."
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Eh, the (growing) insanity of the electoral college is not a necessary feature of a democracy.
      - CamperBob2 2y ago
        It is as far as this one's concerned.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        No, not necessary, just (currently) Constitutionally mandated. Those are not the same thing.
        CamperBob2 2y ago
        Your options for getting rid of it are Congressional ratification with an overwhelming majority (LOL), a Constitutional convention (a horror too frightening to contemplate, given the people who would be involved), or guns. Which do you prefer?
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        I'm not suggesting getting rid of it, stop with the hysterics. I'm saying it's not a necessary feature of a democracy, as you suggested in your original post. It is a highly idiosyncratic design decision in one democracy. It is not at all functionally necessary to America's system, and it's certainly not necessary to any other, as proven by its conspicuous absence from said democratic systems. Five stupid people outvoting four dumb people is a natural outcome in every democratic system. One person outvoting two based on geographic location is not a natural outcome in every democratic system. It's not that hard to understand if you take off your ideology blinkers for a moment and read the words in front of you.
        CamperBob2 2y ago
        It's not that hard to understand if you take off your ideology blinkers for a moment and read the words in front of you. If you have a point to make, make it.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    It's also a recipe for a tyranny of the majority and a horrible form of government.
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  This is the wrong take. The system reflects the will of the people who the system deems important. The average person wants higher wages, shorter hours and cheaper cost of living w/r/t rent, food, fuel and health. Congress is reflecting none of those desires right now because they serves the needs of the oligarchic selectorate that has been funding unrestricted class warfare against regular people for the last 20 years.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > average person wants higher wages, shorter hours and cheaper cost of living w/r/t rent, food, fuel and health. Congress is reflecting none of those desires The average voter does not uniformly express these preferences.
    - arrosenberg 2y ago
      Duh? Like, by definition, an average doesn't reflect uniform expression. The people who don't want those things are a minority, but they are getting their way, because the system reflects the desires of the elites, not the desires of the average.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > people who don't want that are a minority, but they are getting their way They’re the majority. Almost every voter puts pocketbook issues near the top of their list, but not so far up that they’re willing to be civically active about it unless it’s a crisis. Herego, we spend most of our non-crisis time on non-pocketbook issues.
        CamperBob2 2y ago
        Almost every voter puts pocketbook issues near the top of their list, but not so far up that they’re willing to be civically active about it unless it’s a crisis. We're not in a crisis now, but people voted in the last national election as if we were, because Fox News told them that we were.
- nico 2y ago
  This is just false > Study: Congress literally doesn’t care what you think > Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies that ended up becoming law. In other words, they compared what the public wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all. https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba There are several articles about the study
  - toolz 2y ago
    I think you're over-representing just how well opinion surveys can represent the actual will of the people. To put this in a less politicized analogy, everyone will tell you they want to be rich, but how many people are willing to make sacrifices to become rich? It turns out many rich people today are rich because they didn't have to make very many sacrifices, while most everyone, including minimum wage employees, can become a millionaire. Mathematically it's not all that complex. People will tell you what they want with some internalized model that isn't representative of the realistic trade-offs that would have to be made. So in effect what people say isn't based in the reality of what they actually want.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Another interpretation: when you sum a bunch of opinions you end up with a result that doesn’t look particularly like any of the inputs, and certainly not a large portion of them.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Do you realize this study uses completely subjective post-hoc assessment of what industry lobby's wanted?
- phyzix5761 2y ago
  > Democratic institutions are a much more accurate way of reflecting the will of the people You're right but that's not what we have in the US. We have a Constitutional Republic. Elected representatives write the laws. People are not voting directly on laws and issues (on a federal level). I'm not saying we should change it but for the parent comment to say that "The People decided this" is not an accurate statement. That's all I meant with my comment.
derektank 2y ago
If members of Congress are not acting in the interests of their constituents, their constituents have the power to vote them out. The decision not to is what's known as "the consent of the governed". Perhaps that's not exactly the same as "the will of the people" but it's close enough for casual usage.
- nico 2y ago
  Vote them out and elect who? Some other member from one of the two parties, who will continue to make decisions mostly for their rich donors? > Princeton University study: Public opinion has “near-zero” impact on U.S. law. > One thing that does have an influence? Money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a “statistically non-significant impact,” economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence. https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Public opinion has “near-zero” impact on U.S. law Re-run that within voting jurisdictions. What that study largely seems to reference is that local representation is, in part, a divide and conquer mechanism.
- daedrdev 2y ago
  in 2024 recently rejected numerous alternative voting systems that would have allowed third party candidates to have a fighting chance
clucas 2y ago
What's your best example of something the US Congress has done, or failed to do, that was contrary to the will of the people?
- phyzix5761 2y ago
  Here are a few examples of times congress passed laws/acts which went against the will of the people: The Fugitive Slave Act (1850) The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) The Prohibition Act (1919) The Vietnam War Draft (1960s) The Troubled Asset Relief Program (2008)
  - clucas 2y ago
    OK, the only modern example on your list is TARP. I think the strength of your examples does not justify the strength of your statement. Actually, I just read your update, you've changed from making a bold (and, in my view, wrong) statement about how government is not responsive to the will of the people, to a fairly boring technical point about how a representative democracy works. I have no idea if you're just doing a motte and bailey or if you were never trying to make a bold claim in the first place... I'll just leave my piece here, in any case: I believe that the US system of government actually works really well, and in general we tend to get laws and regulations that are based on the broad consensus of a very diverse electorate. This is a good thing. In my opinion, when most people complain about how the government doesn't work for the people, what they actually don't like is that a lot of the country disagrees with them, and that disagreement is reflected in our government. But, maybe I'm wrong and there's some other system we can come up with that will keep a vast and diverse nation hanging together prosperously for another 250 years. Shrug.
    - phyzix5761 2y ago
      Some more modern examples: Gun Control Legislation (e.g., Background Checks, 2013) After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, polls showed overwhelming public support (over 80%) for universal background checks. Congress failed to pass significant gun control measures despite this broad consensus. Net Neutrality Repeal (2017) Public opinion polls showed strong bipartisan support for net neutrality regulations. Despite this, Congress and the FCC rolled back these protections, prioritizing telecom industry interests. Affordable Care Act (ACA) Repeal Attempts (2017) Repeated attempts by Congress to repeal the ACA (Obamacare) were made despite consistent public support for key provisions like protections for pre-existing conditions. Stock Trading by Members of Congress Polls show overwhelming public support (around 70-75%) for banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks due to conflict-of-interest concerns. Yet, no significant legislation has passed to address this issue.

9question1 2y ago

You greatly overestimate the quality of the will of the people. Just because you don't like certain outcomes because they are stupid doesn't mean that those outcomes aren't what people wanted. Democratic institutions are a much more accurate way of reflecting the will of the people than most other attempts to measure that, for many reasons including the existence of people who don't respond to surveys but vote.

greenavocado 2y ago
Democratic institutions can be subverted with first past the post voting systems and the illusion of choice amongst the most vocal and well funded parties
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  You know what the technical term for a subverted democracy is? "Democracy." Also known as, "Five people with an IQ of 90 outvoting four people with an IQ of 110," or "One person in Iowa canceling two votes in California."
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Eh, the (growing) insanity of the electoral college is not a necessary feature of a democracy.
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      It is as far as this one's concerned.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        No, not necessary, just (currently) Constitutionally mandated. Those are not the same thing.
        CamperBob2 2y ago
        Your options for getting rid of it are Congressional ratification with an overwhelming majority (LOL), a Constitutional convention (a horror too frightening to contemplate, given the people who would be involved), or guns. Which do you prefer?
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        I'm not suggesting getting rid of it, stop with the hysterics. I'm saying it's not a necessary feature of a democracy, as you suggested in your original post. It is a highly idiosyncratic design decision in one democracy. It is not at all functionally necessary to America's system, and it's certainly not necessary to any other, as proven by its conspicuous absence from said democratic systems. Five stupid people outvoting four dumb people is a natural outcome in every democratic system. One person outvoting two based on geographic location is not a natural outcome in every democratic system. It's not that hard to understand if you take off your ideology blinkers for a moment and read the words in front of you.
        CamperBob2 2y ago
        It's not that hard to understand if you take off your ideology blinkers for a moment and read the words in front of you. If you have a point to make, make it.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  It's also a recipe for a tyranny of the majority and a horrible form of government.
arrosenberg 2y ago
This is the wrong take. The system reflects the will of the people who the system deems important. The average person wants higher wages, shorter hours and cheaper cost of living w/r/t rent, food, fuel and health. Congress is reflecting none of those desires right now because they serves the needs of the oligarchic selectorate that has been funding unrestricted class warfare against regular people for the last 20 years.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > average person wants higher wages, shorter hours and cheaper cost of living w/r/t rent, food, fuel and health. Congress is reflecting none of those desires The average voter does not uniformly express these preferences.
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    Duh? Like, by definition, an average doesn't reflect uniform expression. The people who don't want those things are a minority, but they are getting their way, because the system reflects the desires of the elites, not the desires of the average.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > people who don't want that are a minority, but they are getting their way They’re the majority. Almost every voter puts pocketbook issues near the top of their list, but not so far up that they’re willing to be civically active about it unless it’s a crisis. Herego, we spend most of our non-crisis time on non-pocketbook issues.
      - CamperBob2 2y ago
        Almost every voter puts pocketbook issues near the top of their list, but not so far up that they’re willing to be civically active about it unless it’s a crisis. We're not in a crisis now, but people voted in the last national election as if we were, because Fox News told them that we were.
nico 2y ago
This is just false > Study: Congress literally doesn’t care what you think > Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies that ended up becoming law. In other words, they compared what the public wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all. https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba There are several articles about the study
- toolz 2y ago
  I think you're over-representing just how well opinion surveys can represent the actual will of the people. To put this in a less politicized analogy, everyone will tell you they want to be rich, but how many people are willing to make sacrifices to become rich? It turns out many rich people today are rich because they didn't have to make very many sacrifices, while most everyone, including minimum wage employees, can become a millionaire. Mathematically it's not all that complex. People will tell you what they want with some internalized model that isn't representative of the realistic trade-offs that would have to be made. So in effect what people say isn't based in the reality of what they actually want.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Another interpretation: when you sum a bunch of opinions you end up with a result that doesn’t look particularly like any of the inputs, and certainly not a large portion of them.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Do you realize this study uses completely subjective post-hoc assessment of what industry lobby's wanted?
phyzix5761 2y ago
> Democratic institutions are a much more accurate way of reflecting the will of the people You're right but that's not what we have in the US. We have a Constitutional Republic. Elected representatives write the laws. People are not voting directly on laws and issues (on a federal level). I'm not saying we should change it but for the parent comment to say that "The People decided this" is not an accurate statement. That's all I meant with my comment.

derektank 2y ago

If members of Congress are not acting in the interests of their constituents, their constituents have the power to vote them out. The decision not to is what's known as "the consent of the governed". Perhaps that's not exactly the same as "the will of the people" but it's close enough for casual usage.

nico 2y ago
Vote them out and elect who? Some other member from one of the two parties, who will continue to make decisions mostly for their rich donors? > Princeton University study: Public opinion has “near-zero” impact on U.S. law. > One thing that does have an influence? Money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a “statistically non-significant impact,” economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence. https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Public opinion has “near-zero” impact on U.S. law Re-run that within voting jurisdictions. What that study largely seems to reference is that local representation is, in part, a divide and conquer mechanism.
daedrdev 2y ago
in 2024 recently rejected numerous alternative voting systems that would have allowed third party candidates to have a fighting chance

clucas 2y ago

What's your best example of something the US Congress has done, or failed to do, that was contrary to the will of the people?

phyzix5761 2y ago
Here are a few examples of times congress passed laws/acts which went against the will of the people: The Fugitive Slave Act (1850) The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) The Prohibition Act (1919) The Vietnam War Draft (1960s) The Troubled Asset Relief Program (2008)
- clucas 2y ago
  OK, the only modern example on your list is TARP. I think the strength of your examples does not justify the strength of your statement. Actually, I just read your update, you've changed from making a bold (and, in my view, wrong) statement about how government is not responsive to the will of the people, to a fairly boring technical point about how a representative democracy works. I have no idea if you're just doing a motte and bailey or if you were never trying to make a bold claim in the first place... I'll just leave my piece here, in any case: I believe that the US system of government actually works really well, and in general we tend to get laws and regulations that are based on the broad consensus of a very diverse electorate. This is a good thing. In my opinion, when most people complain about how the government doesn't work for the people, what they actually don't like is that a lot of the country disagrees with them, and that disagreement is reflected in our government. But, maybe I'm wrong and there's some other system we can come up with that will keep a vast and diverse nation hanging together prosperously for another 250 years. Shrug.
  - phyzix5761 2y ago
    Some more modern examples: Gun Control Legislation (e.g., Background Checks, 2013) After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, polls showed overwhelming public support (over 80%) for universal background checks. Congress failed to pass significant gun control measures despite this broad consensus. Net Neutrality Repeal (2017) Public opinion polls showed strong bipartisan support for net neutrality regulations. Despite this, Congress and the FCC rolled back these protections, prioritizing telecom industry interests. Affordable Care Act (ACA) Repeal Attempts (2017) Repeated attempts by Congress to repeal the ACA (Obamacare) were made despite consistent public support for key provisions like protections for pre-existing conditions. Stock Trading by Members of Congress Polls show overwhelming public support (around 70-75%) for banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks due to conflict-of-interest concerns. Yet, no significant legislation has passed to address this issue.