5 ms·

The NSA did not spring out of the ground, either, and the Cold War has arguably been over since 1991 or so. Indirect democracy makes it very easy to eschew res

by weland 13y ago

The NSA did not spring out of the ground, either, and the Cold War has arguably been over since 1991 or so. Indirect democracy makes it very easy to eschew responsibility in terms of "I had a choice between candidate X and candidate Y; they both supported decision D. I didn't support it, but since I had to vote between either X and Y, I didn't have a choice, did I?". If the actions of the NSA were seen by American citizens as such a major concern that they would not vote for a candidate who supported it, then we'd see major votes against one of them. If all the candidates were to represent interests opposite to those of their voters, then we'd see no votes for any. The fact that we keep seeing these votes is simply a proof of the fact that most people don't really care about it. The handful of us who hang out on HackerNews aren't representative of the general populace. Ask the audience of Toddlers and Tiaras, who are probably an order of magnitude more than we are, what they think about it, and 90% of them would probably tell you something similar to "NSA? Is that like, UUUUUUUM, some football league or something?" > People have been boycotting elections for years. That only makes it easier for the radical fringes to their their crap on the agenda and for politicians to focus on those low-hanging fruits. People have been boycotting elections for years -- they're only valuable when they bring the turnout below the threshold of validity, which has happened in some countries. If US citizens feel their political or electoral system is biased, whining about it won't help -- and it looks particularly hypocritical after readily applauding the Arab spring.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>If the actions of the NSA were seen by American citizens as such a major concern that they would not vote for a candidate who supported it, then we'd see major votes against one of them. If all the candidates were to represent interests opposite to those of their voters, then we'd see no votes for any. You've simplified this way too much, as if each voter only has one issue that they care about. Political strategists are experts at game theory. They build political platforms based on how to get the most people off their couches per dollar. It is a multi-dimensional problem. >The fact that we keep seeing these votes is simply a proof of the fact that most people don't really care about it. It is proof of no such thing. Most people are happy to leave well enough alone when they don't see a problem. NSA surveillance has never been a serious issue in a national campaign. Until recently, anyone who expressed too much interest in domestic surveillance of citizens was a tinfoil hat wearing crackpot. > The handful of us who hang out on HackerNews aren't representative of the general populace. So? The populace is a composite of many factions. Some people even have mixed political philosophies. > Ask the audience of Toddlers and Tiaras, who are probably an order of magnitude more than we are, what they think about it, and 90% of them would probably tell you something similar to "NSA? Is that like, UUUUUUUM, some football league or something?" The media is the reason for this. I wish I had some good idea that wasn't completely at odds with democratic principles. >> People have been boycotting elections for years. That only makes it easier for the radical fringes to their their crap on the agenda and for politicians to focus on those low-hanging fruits. >People have been boycotting elections for years -- they're only valuable when they bring the turnout below the threshold of validity, which has happened in some countries. Well, that isn't going to happen, ever, or at least until the "Toddlers and Tiaras" crowd has some political motivation other than ["ZOMG Abortion", "ZOMG Teh Gays", "ZOMG Illegal Mexicans in our jerbs"] >If US citizens feel their political or electoral system is biased, whining about it won't help -- and it looks particularly hypocritical after readily applauding the Arab spring. Whining about politics is as great an American tradition as Apple Pie.
- weland 13y ago
  > You've simplified this way too much, as if each voter only has one issue that they care about. Political strategists are experts at game theory. They build political platforms based on how to get the most people off their couches per dollar. It is a multi-dimensional problem. I don't think I have. Blatant breaches of something that voters perceive to be a fundamental right of theirs should be a dealbreaker; I am fairly sure that a candidate whose otherwise great agenda would include items like stoping state financing of any educational institution, explicitly forbidding any kind of health care for patients over fifty (you can pick any criteria here), explicitly introducing media censorship or punishing adherence to Catholicism with jail wouldn't get too many votes from mentally-sane voters. It sounds fairly logical to assume that most American citizens are ignorant enough about their dignity, the meaning of being human or about who they are voting for that they don't perceive acts of support for such breaches of their rights to be a dealbreaker. I'm not saying this is good or bad -- Americans seem to be happy enough not to do much about it, so if it floats their boat, it's awesome -- I'm just arguing that it is representative for them.
- svantana 13y ago
  >The media is the reason for this. I wish I had some good idea that wasn't completely at odds with democratic principles. Perhaps one of the problems with America today is that the right to broadcast whatever nonsense across the airwaves is considered a democratic principle.
- ajscherer 13y ago
  >The media is the reason for this. I don't quite follow. It's not like there is some naturally occurring flow of newspapers, radio and television broadcasts that discuss with the correct, important issues in an intelligent way, and some sort of cabal (the media) has come in and suppressed all that so they could force toddlers and tiaras down their throats. There are plenty of news outlets that are spending their money to broadcast the details of the NSA scandal as accurately as possible, and if people happen to find those outlets on their TVs, they change the channel to toddlers and tiaras as quickly as possible. Which goes back to the original (I think correct) point that most people don't find this particular issue as dire as many people think they should.
steveklabnik 13y ago
> The fact that we keep seeing these votes is simply a proof of the fact that most people don't really care about it. Allow me to introduce you to two voters, A and B. Also two representatives, X and Y. There are two issues in this campaign, D and E. Support matrix: DE Xyn Yny Now, A may care about both D and E, but feel more strongly about D. B may care about both D and E, but feel a bit more strongly about E. So A votes for X and B votes for Y. You can't meaningfully infer that B "doesn't care about" D in this situation, they had to make a tough choice and preferred the other. But this binary makes it seem like they voted anti-D. Expand to a zillion candidates and a zillion issues. You can't really get a meaningful inference, and this is assuming that everyone is 100% rational!
- dmix 13y ago
  I'm curious how much of the perceived benefit of republic-based democracy is based in logical fallacies and myth. Voters are irrational and on a long-term scale, growth in state power eventually leads to the circumvention of public involvement, counter to the very definition of a republic: "A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a 'public matter', not the private concern of the rulers". Constitutions were the obvious solution to this problem but they are very rarely considered absolute law in modern times, which almost defeats their purpose. Their influence worn down over decades of tinkering and executive-branch expansions in power.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Constitutions were not the solution to the problem. An educated and engaged electorate was the solution. The Constitution was a framework for that electorate to use as a tool, but several of the founders were very clear that the essential requirement of effective government was the engaged and educated electorate. James Madison: * The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty. * Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. * Learned institutions ought to be favorite objects with every free people. They throw that light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty and dangerous encroachments on the public liberty. Thomas Jefferson: * Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree. * Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to ; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty. * I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. this is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.

by weland 13y ago

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>If the actions of the NSA were seen by American citizens as such a major concern that they would not vote for a candidate who supported it, then we'd see major votes against one of them. If all the candidates were to represent interests opposite to those of their voters, then we'd see no votes for any. You've simplified this way too much, as if each voter only has one issue that they care about. Political strategists are experts at game theory. They build political platforms based on how to get the most people off their couches per dollar. It is a multi-dimensional problem. >The fact that we keep seeing these votes is simply a proof of the fact that most people don't really care about it. It is proof of no such thing. Most people are happy to leave well enough alone when they don't see a problem. NSA surveillance has never been a serious issue in a national campaign. Until recently, anyone who expressed too much interest in domestic surveillance of citizens was a tinfoil hat wearing crackpot. > The handful of us who hang out on HackerNews aren't representative of the general populace. So? The populace is a composite of many factions. Some people even have mixed political philosophies. > Ask the audience of Toddlers and Tiaras, who are probably an order of magnitude more than we are, what they think about it, and 90% of them would probably tell you something similar to "NSA? Is that like, UUUUUUUM, some football league or something?" The media is the reason for this. I wish I had some good idea that wasn't completely at odds with democratic principles. >> People have been boycotting elections for years. That only makes it easier for the radical fringes to their their crap on the agenda and for politicians to focus on those low-hanging fruits. >People have been boycotting elections for years -- they're only valuable when they bring the turnout below the threshold of validity, which has happened in some countries. Well, that isn't going to happen, ever, or at least until the "Toddlers and Tiaras" crowd has some political motivation other than ["ZOMG Abortion", "ZOMG Teh Gays", "ZOMG Illegal Mexicans in our jerbs"] >If US citizens feel their political or electoral system is biased, whining about it won't help -- and it looks particularly hypocritical after readily applauding the Arab spring. Whining about politics is as great an American tradition as Apple Pie.

weland 13y ago
> You've simplified this way too much, as if each voter only has one issue that they care about. Political strategists are experts at game theory. They build political platforms based on how to get the most people off their couches per dollar. It is a multi-dimensional problem. I don't think I have. Blatant breaches of something that voters perceive to be a fundamental right of theirs should be a dealbreaker; I am fairly sure that a candidate whose otherwise great agenda would include items like stoping state financing of any educational institution, explicitly forbidding any kind of health care for patients over fifty (you can pick any criteria here), explicitly introducing media censorship or punishing adherence to Catholicism with jail wouldn't get too many votes from mentally-sane voters. It sounds fairly logical to assume that most American citizens are ignorant enough about their dignity, the meaning of being human or about who they are voting for that they don't perceive acts of support for such breaches of their rights to be a dealbreaker. I'm not saying this is good or bad -- Americans seem to be happy enough not to do much about it, so if it floats their boat, it's awesome -- I'm just arguing that it is representative for them.
svantana 13y ago
>The media is the reason for this. I wish I had some good idea that wasn't completely at odds with democratic principles. Perhaps one of the problems with America today is that the right to broadcast whatever nonsense across the airwaves is considered a democratic principle.
ajscherer 13y ago
>The media is the reason for this. I don't quite follow. It's not like there is some naturally occurring flow of newspapers, radio and television broadcasts that discuss with the correct, important issues in an intelligent way, and some sort of cabal (the media) has come in and suppressed all that so they could force toddlers and tiaras down their throats. There are plenty of news outlets that are spending their money to broadcast the details of the NSA scandal as accurately as possible, and if people happen to find those outlets on their TVs, they change the channel to toddlers and tiaras as quickly as possible. Which goes back to the original (I think correct) point that most people don't find this particular issue as dire as many people think they should.

steveklabnik 13y ago

> The fact that we keep seeing these votes is simply a proof of the fact that most people don't really care about it. Allow me to introduce you to two voters, A and B. Also two representatives, X and Y. There are two issues in this campaign, D and E. Support matrix: DE Xyn Yny Now, A may care about both D and E, but feel more strongly about D. B may care about both D and E, but feel a bit more strongly about E. So A votes for X and B votes for Y. You can't meaningfully infer that B "doesn't care about" D in this situation, they had to make a tough choice and preferred the other. But this binary makes it seem like they voted anti-D. Expand to a zillion candidates and a zillion issues. You can't really get a meaningful inference, and this is assuming that everyone is 100% rational!

dmix 13y ago
I'm curious how much of the perceived benefit of republic-based democracy is based in logical fallacies and myth. Voters are irrational and on a long-term scale, growth in state power eventually leads to the circumvention of public involvement, counter to the very definition of a republic: "A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a 'public matter', not the private concern of the rulers". Constitutions were the obvious solution to this problem but they are very rarely considered absolute law in modern times, which almost defeats their purpose. Their influence worn down over decades of tinkering and executive-branch expansions in power.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Constitutions were not the solution to the problem. An educated and engaged electorate was the solution. The Constitution was a framework for that electorate to use as a tool, but several of the founders were very clear that the essential requirement of effective government was the engaged and educated electorate. James Madison: * The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty. * Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. * Learned institutions ought to be favorite objects with every free people. They throw that light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty and dangerous encroachments on the public liberty. Thomas Jefferson: * Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree. * Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to ; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty. * I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. this is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.