3 ms·
Even theoretically that's not true. But if we stoop to the pragmatic, sometimes they win without even a majority of those still not disillusioned enough to stop
by NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
Even theoretically that's not true. But if we stoop to the pragmatic, sometimes they win without even a majority of those still not disillusioned enough to stop voting.
>It has nothing to do with little kids' aspirations to be a leader.
If not that, then there's nothing about voting that I give much of a shit about. Nor do tens of millions of others. And if he helps to rain destruction upon such systems as you would create, then more power to him.
- estearum 1y agoYou don't think it's theoretically or pragmatically true that elected leaders are constrained/guided/informed by the feedback generated by elections? It seems like maybe you read my "it has nothing to do with X" as meaning "it is not desirable if X." Otherwise not sure what warranted that hysterical response.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago>You don't think it's theoretically or pragmatically true that elected leaders are constrained/guided/informed by the feedback generated by elections? A "mandate" isn't what you just described above. It's always true that those who weasel their way into office have been influenced by someone or someones, but to call that a "mandate" when it amounts to some tiny non-majority fraction of the (even voting age) population is bizarre. Is this some meme joke that I'm just clueless about, because it's difficult to take you seriously. >not sure what warranted that hysterical response. An even hand typed the words with a calm heart, and no other emotion other than exasperation. Your takes are pretty far from reality.
- estearum 1y agoIn your model, is a simple majority a necessary feature of a mandate? And what’s the scope of the majority? A simple majority on each individual decision?