6 ms·

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 out

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.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        > the electoral college is not a necessary feature of a democracy. You offered two traits of "democracy" 1. 5 low IQ voters outvote 4 high IQ votes 2. 1 voter in geography X can outvote 2 voters in geography Y Trait 1 is a necessary feature of a democracy. Trait 2 is not a necessary feature of a democracy. You placing the two together in a list to describe "Democracy" is a category error. Trait 2 is an idiosyncratic design feature of exactly one democracy, and it is not necessary to either this democracy in particular or to democracies in general.
- _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.

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.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        > the electoral college is not a necessary feature of a democracy. You offered two traits of "democracy" 1. 5 low IQ voters outvote 4 high IQ votes 2. 1 voter in geography X can outvote 2 voters in geography Y Trait 1 is a necessary feature of a democracy. Trait 2 is not a necessary feature of a democracy. You placing the two together in a list to describe "Democracy" is a category error. Trait 2 is an idiosyncratic design feature of exactly one democracy, and it is not necessary to either this democracy in particular or to democracies in general.
_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.