3 ms·

The people. We voted for the people who gave the power, and we re-elected them. It’s really that simple. Is it “too late” now? maybe, but we had ~25 years since

The people. We voted for the people who gave the power, and we re-elected them. It’s really that simple. Is it “too late” now? maybe, but we had ~25 years since this all started post 911 to react, and chose not to.

oceansky 6mo ago
There elections every two years, it's not too late. But only if people actually want that enough to vote and press politicians.
- anigbrowl 6mo ago
  There's no mechanism for pressing politicians except threatening not to vote for them again, and politicians are exceptionally cowardly and avoid picking up hot potatoes that could incur criticism. I'm in a district with one of the safest seats in the country, and getting my representative to state a position on many issues is like getting blood out of a stone. There's no formal mechanism of accountability for members of Congress. Representatives hold a few town halls a year where they might be subject to social shaming by their constituents, but there's no legal obligation to do so and even when they're publicly embarrassed they often dismiss public opposition as 'a few paid agitators' or the like. This is doubly and triply true for complex policy issues which require a lot of explaining, making it virtually impossible to build grassroots support. So you just end up with a nonprofit industrial complex that needs to constantly raise funds for lobbying and publishes slates of endorsements at election time that relatively few people have the time or inclination to read.
  - Eisenstein 6mo ago
    The answer is to vote in the primaries. That's how you unseat a 'safe' seat. I'm not going to say its a good answer, because the primary system and the two party system in general are terrible, but its the best choice you have besides running yourself.
  - HerbManic 6mo ago
    It also doesn't help that in situations like this, both major parties are moving in lock step. You cannot vote against something that both party stand for. Terrance McKenna once said that the worst president was the one in power, regardless of when it is. It is because for the most part, they just keep building on the existing frame work, standing on the shoulders of those before them. Now one could argue that Trump is doing the opposite this term, but depending on were you stand, this might not have been a great out come.
  - doom2 6mo ago
    I wonder how the dynamic between members of Congress and their constituents would change if we had a larger Congress. Instead of the ~786k people per representative, having ~107k like the UK. Would it be feasible? Probably not. But Congress is way too small and it results in some poor incentives.
  - krior 6mo ago
    > There's no mechanism for pressing politicians except threatening not to vote for them again... That mechanism seems uniquely weak due to the american voting system.
sneak 6mo ago
Nobody ever voted for mass surveillance. There's no party you can vote for in the US that doesn't advocate for total mass surveillance by the federal government. Don't pretend this is a red/blue thing. The military-industrial complex is fully integrated with both parties in the US.
- patrickmay 6mo ago
  No major party. There are smaller parties who oppose mass surveillance.
  - rebasedoctopus 6mo ago
    Yes, unfortunately you can't vote for them without benefiting a major party you oppose.
    - lmm 6mo ago
      That's a toxic way of thinking. No party is entitled to your vote, and not voting for one is certainly not an endorsement of another.
      - sethammons 6mo ago
        Unfortunately that is how it works. A vote for the green party is simply a vote not cast for D and favors R; and a vote for a libertarian is a vote not for R, so it benefits D. A solution is Ranked Choice Voting where you can say, "Green, and if they don't win, D (or whatever)." Fwiw, I vote my conscience, not to win. Not the best for my political positions maybe, but I hope to send a signal to others that maybe something other than R/D is one day possible. But, yeah, RCV would help with that conundrum.
      - Spoom 6mo ago
        While this is true, very often that is the impact of a third party vote in a federal election. See the election of one George W. Bush and the impact of Mr. Nader.
      - 6mo ago
tmoertel 6mo ago
> We voted for the people who gave the power, and we re-elected them. That would be true if We The People were reliably informed when we showed up to cast our votes. However, in recent years, we have become detached from reality. "News media" companies pivoted away from keeping their audiences informed about things that mattered and instead focused on capturing audiences and keeping those audiences maximally engaged so that they could be sold to advertisers and otherwise exploited. Now when people show up to the polls, they think they're voting to keep themselves safe from violent crimnals running rampant; they think they are voting to keep out the flood of strange outsiders coming to take their jobs and eat their family pets. But in reality they're voting for -- and getting -- something quite different.
- Quarrelsome 6mo ago
  > That would be true if We The People were reliably informed when we showed up to cast our votes. Weren't the democrats criticised for campaigning on the message that voting for Trump was a significant risk to due process and democracy? I feel like every voter was aware of what happened on Jan 6th and still voted for him with some level of knowledge about that.
  - rootusrootus 6mo ago
    I agree. People had already experienced one round of Trump before, and had every opportunity to see what he was planning for this term. There is no reasonable conclusion other than that they indeed wanted exactly what we got.
    - angry_octet 6mo ago
      The US has very low voter turnout. Winning is mainly getting your voters to turn up, but usually apathy wins. Of course the media plays a huge part in this, but voter suppression is the US is fine art. Personally I feel that non voters effectively voted for Trump, and they should own that as much as die hard MAGA types.
      - 6mo ago

oceansky 6mo ago

There elections every two years, it's not too late. But only if people actually want that enough to vote and press politicians.

anigbrowl 6mo ago
There's no mechanism for pressing politicians except threatening not to vote for them again, and politicians are exceptionally cowardly and avoid picking up hot potatoes that could incur criticism. I'm in a district with one of the safest seats in the country, and getting my representative to state a position on many issues is like getting blood out of a stone. There's no formal mechanism of accountability for members of Congress. Representatives hold a few town halls a year where they might be subject to social shaming by their constituents, but there's no legal obligation to do so and even when they're publicly embarrassed they often dismiss public opposition as 'a few paid agitators' or the like. This is doubly and triply true for complex policy issues which require a lot of explaining, making it virtually impossible to build grassroots support. So you just end up with a nonprofit industrial complex that needs to constantly raise funds for lobbying and publishes slates of endorsements at election time that relatively few people have the time or inclination to read.
- Eisenstein 6mo ago
  The answer is to vote in the primaries. That's how you unseat a 'safe' seat. I'm not going to say its a good answer, because the primary system and the two party system in general are terrible, but its the best choice you have besides running yourself.
- HerbManic 6mo ago
  It also doesn't help that in situations like this, both major parties are moving in lock step. You cannot vote against something that both party stand for. Terrance McKenna once said that the worst president was the one in power, regardless of when it is. It is because for the most part, they just keep building on the existing frame work, standing on the shoulders of those before them. Now one could argue that Trump is doing the opposite this term, but depending on were you stand, this might not have been a great out come.
- doom2 6mo ago
  I wonder how the dynamic between members of Congress and their constituents would change if we had a larger Congress. Instead of the ~786k people per representative, having ~107k like the UK. Would it be feasible? Probably not. But Congress is way too small and it results in some poor incentives.
- krior 6mo ago
  > There's no mechanism for pressing politicians except threatening not to vote for them again... That mechanism seems uniquely weak due to the american voting system.

sneak 6mo ago

Nobody ever voted for mass surveillance. There's no party you can vote for in the US that doesn't advocate for total mass surveillance by the federal government. Don't pretend this is a red/blue thing. The military-industrial complex is fully integrated with both parties in the US.

patrickmay 6mo ago
No major party. There are smaller parties who oppose mass surveillance.
- rebasedoctopus 6mo ago
  Yes, unfortunately you can't vote for them without benefiting a major party you oppose.
  - lmm 6mo ago
    That's a toxic way of thinking. No party is entitled to your vote, and not voting for one is certainly not an endorsement of another.
    - sethammons 6mo ago
      Unfortunately that is how it works. A vote for the green party is simply a vote not cast for D and favors R; and a vote for a libertarian is a vote not for R, so it benefits D. A solution is Ranked Choice Voting where you can say, "Green, and if they don't win, D (or whatever)." Fwiw, I vote my conscience, not to win. Not the best for my political positions maybe, but I hope to send a signal to others that maybe something other than R/D is one day possible. But, yeah, RCV would help with that conundrum.
    - Spoom 6mo ago
      While this is true, very often that is the impact of a third party vote in a federal election. See the election of one George W. Bush and the impact of Mr. Nader.
    - 6mo ago

tmoertel 6mo ago

> We voted for the people who gave the power, and we re-elected them. That would be true if We The People were reliably informed when we showed up to cast our votes. However, in recent years, we have become detached from reality. "News media" companies pivoted away from keeping their audiences informed about things that mattered and instead focused on capturing audiences and keeping those audiences maximally engaged so that they could be sold to advertisers and otherwise exploited. Now when people show up to the polls, they think they're voting to keep themselves safe from violent crimnals running rampant; they think they are voting to keep out the flood of strange outsiders coming to take their jobs and eat their family pets. But in reality they're voting for -- and getting -- something quite different.

Quarrelsome 6mo ago
> That would be true if We The People were reliably informed when we showed up to cast our votes. Weren't the democrats criticised for campaigning on the message that voting for Trump was a significant risk to due process and democracy? I feel like every voter was aware of what happened on Jan 6th and still voted for him with some level of knowledge about that.
- rootusrootus 6mo ago
  I agree. People had already experienced one round of Trump before, and had every opportunity to see what he was planning for this term. There is no reasonable conclusion other than that they indeed wanted exactly what we got.
  - angry_octet 6mo ago
    The US has very low voter turnout. Winning is mainly getting your voters to turn up, but usually apathy wins. Of course the media plays a huge part in this, but voter suppression is the US is fine art. Personally I feel that non voters effectively voted for Trump, and they should own that as much as die hard MAGA types.
    - 6mo ago