5 ms·

It seems very clear to me that the feedback loop is utterly broken in all democracies. Two big reasons: 1: It's incredibly difficult to judge the effects of a

It seems very clear to me that the feedback loop is utterly broken in all democracies. Two big reasons: 1: It's incredibly difficult to judge the effects of an elected leader's actions. Even assuming an educated/informed/engaged populace, there's nearly always an extremely long delay between an elected leader's actions and the results of those actions. 2: Even when the results of the actions are very tangible, it's still extremely difficult to assign credit or blame for the outcome. A prime example would be the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Americans can tangibly experience the outcome of the ACA and form their own opinions. However, the final product is objectively quite different from what Obama and the Democrats initially wanted. So if you think the ACA turned out pretty well (or poorly), to whom do you ascribe the credit (or blame)? To the Democrats for pushing the idea, or Republicans and the healthcare industry for scaling back its initial ambitions? To make an informed decision here you need to know "how the sausage was made" and you're also comparing the actual outcome versus a number of hypothetical roads not taken. It just avoids perpetuating leadership that gets too misaligned with a large share of the population. I think, at best, in America we've basically just achieved a kind of schizophrenic perpetual see-saw between parties that has almost nothing to do with how effectively either one governs. Which is I guess slightly better than having one party perpetually in power forever, but is not great. It precludes any kind of long-term thinking, or stable relationships with other nations.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Well, when a party has lost an election, what's supposed to happen is they spend the next several years figuring out what the people actually want. (Or, more cynically, at least what the people want to hear.) That's where the feedback gets listened to - when they're out of power.
mcphage 2y ago
> It precludes any kind of long-term thinking, or stable relationships with other nations. Well, we had stable relationships with other nations, until a few months ago. So it's at least possible.
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  It’s been longer than a few months. Biden actively snubbed multiple high ranking dignitaries and even world leaders during his presidency, avoiding them due to his advanced mental decline. Multiple countries, such as Hungary, France, and even Germany, saw the waning relevance of US power and allied themselves with Russia, or in France’s case wishes to disassociate from NATO and have Europe handle its own military separate from the US.
  - mcphage 2y ago
    > avoiding them due to his advanced mental decline. That’s nothing new, either—Reagan had advanced Alzheimer’s, and I’m sure he was far from the first. This is something different.
antisthenes 2y ago
> So if you think the ACA turned out pretty well (or poorly), to whom do you ascribe the credit (or blame)? To the Democrats for pushing the idea, or Republicans and the healthcare industry for scaling back its initial ambitions? Classic class warfare at work. Here you stand, trying to blame 1 of the political parties, when the people responsible for ACA were company boards of health insurance companies and any other front-men of large business interests (doctor cartels, medical supply companies etc.) In the US, both parties are captive to large business interests, with mostly non-overlapping areas of interest. In almost all cases, you should be looking very closely at large business interests and elect leaders who have shown strong anti-trust tendencies and understand how the social contract works.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
It's the worst system...other than all the other options.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

Well, when a party has lost an election, what's supposed to happen is they spend the next several years figuring out what the people actually want. (Or, more cynically, at least what the people want to hear.) That's where the feedback gets listened to - when they're out of power.

mcphage 2y ago

> It precludes any kind of long-term thinking, or stable relationships with other nations. Well, we had stable relationships with other nations, until a few months ago. So it's at least possible.

tourmalinetaco 2y ago
It’s been longer than a few months. Biden actively snubbed multiple high ranking dignitaries and even world leaders during his presidency, avoiding them due to his advanced mental decline. Multiple countries, such as Hungary, France, and even Germany, saw the waning relevance of US power and allied themselves with Russia, or in France’s case wishes to disassociate from NATO and have Europe handle its own military separate from the US.
- mcphage 2y ago
  > avoiding them due to his advanced mental decline. That’s nothing new, either—Reagan had advanced Alzheimer’s, and I’m sure he was far from the first. This is something different.

antisthenes 2y ago

> So if you think the ACA turned out pretty well (or poorly), to whom do you ascribe the credit (or blame)? To the Democrats for pushing the idea, or Republicans and the healthcare industry for scaling back its initial ambitions? Classic class warfare at work. Here you stand, trying to blame 1 of the political parties, when the people responsible for ACA were company boards of health insurance companies and any other front-men of large business interests (doctor cartels, medical supply companies etc.) In the US, both parties are captive to large business interests, with mostly non-overlapping areas of interest. In almost all cases, you should be looking very closely at large business interests and elect leaders who have shown strong anti-trust tendencies and understand how the social contract works.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

It's the worst system...other than all the other options.