3 ms·
> but it would be more comfort if we weren’t all compelled—completely against most of our wills—to shell out around somewhere around $10K Tax subsidies are dec
by RestlessMind 13y ago
> but it would be more comfort if we weren’t all compelled—completely against most of our wills—to shell out around somewhere around $10K
Tax subsidies are decided by legislators who are elected by us. So the claim - "completely against most of our wills" - is utterly false.
- jessriedel 13y agoDoesn't have to be. Legislators elected with small majorities can easily vote for legislation that is supported by less than 50% of the constituency.
- RestlessMind 13y agoIts possible in one of the following cases: 1. The issue is insignificant enough (or else, opponent would hammer the electorate with ads highlighting this issue) so voters don't care about it. 2. The issue comes up after the election and stance of candidates regarding that is not known before one votes. #2 is not applicable since green energy / electric cars are pretty old issues and voters (should) know what their candidates think about those. #1 might be more applicable, in which case the original point in article ("against most of our wills") is still moot - voters simply don't care about this as much as they care about some other stuff.
- icebraining 13y agoThe fact that there are more important issues doesn't mean voters don't care, it just means the system is unfit to take them into account.
- RestlessMind 13y agoIf majority of voters care about some not-insignificant issue, current system will ensure that its taken into account. And thats my main point - this issue is simply not significant for a majority of the population.
- icebraining 13y agoIf majority of voters care about some not-insignificant issue, current system will ensure that its taken into account. Well, that's your claim, but not everyone agrees.
- icebraining 13y agoNot to mention that constituency is only a subset of all citizens.