3 ms·

> Because the truth is that people generally don't care enough to do anything worth while ("signing" a petition is pretty minimal in terms of effort). Isn't th

by awt 12y ago

> Because the truth is that people generally don't care enough to do anything worth while ("signing" a petition is pretty minimal in terms of effort). Isn't the truth not that people don't care, but actually don't have the power to do anything? Democracy in Athens came about at a time when it was dependent upon its navy and thus its thousands of rowers. Unions (for example) are destroyed, not by union busting, but by industry disappearing. When the government is the largest employer, the people depend on the government and not the other way around. The US no longer depends on the majority of it's voting population. The right to vote of any adult in the US at this point is largely vestigial, as is evidenced by the divergence of actual government policy from the interests of the voting public.

chris_wot 12y ago
The majority of the voting population are voting one way it appears. I'm an outsider, but it seems that the issue is that not enough people are voting. Apologies if this is ill-informed, I'm an Australian so I'm quite possibly wrong.
- awt 12y ago
  They are voting the way they are meant to vote. PACs exist for a reason. Also, why vote? When democracy emerged in the U.S., the voting population was about 800,000. The current voting population is 206,000,000. The power of an individual's vote has decreased immensely. I use federal numbers because the federal government has most of the power now, as opposed to the states, in which an individual's vote is worth relatively more, but still massively less than it was at the time the constitution was written.
  - hackuser 12y ago
    > why vote? When democracy emerged in the U.S., the voting population was about 800,000. The current voting population is 206,000,000. The power of an individual's vote has decreased immensely. I agree that the power to change the outcome of an election is minimal, roughly equal to every other voter. Voting does much more than change election outcomes; it signals the electorate's priorities. Win or lose, every vote from your neighborhood, district, town, county, etc. signals that people there care, and pressures elected officials to pay attention to them. Every vote for your issues, win or lose, signals your priorities. Your representatives' jobs depend on pleasing voters. Democrats elected in districts where people vote for gun rights are not going to push gun control in Congress (and vice versa for Republicans). Counties where 75% vote will get politicians' attention and have their issues addressed; those where 30% vote will be overlooked. And every non-vote in your neighborhood, district, town, county, etc. tells your elected officials that you don't care and that they can safely ignore you.
    - awt 12y ago
      If what voters thinks matters, why is so much money spent on campaigns? Answering my own question, I would say that it is because votes can be bought. Who is more powerful? Someone with $10M to spend on a campaign, or someone with the best political thinking who has no money to spend on a campaign?
      - hackuser 12y ago
        > If what voters thinks matters, why is so much money spent on campaigns? Hmmm... The obvious answer is: To persuade voters to think your way. But I suspect I misunderstand the question. > Who is more powerful? Someone with $10M to spend on a campaign, or someone with the best political thinking who has no money to spend on a campaign? Clearly the former. With $10M, you can persuade many voters to agree with you. But since that fits with my above post, I think I'm missing your point. In the end, however they are formed, it's still voters' opinions (and actions) that matter.

by awt 12y ago

chris_wot 12y ago

The majority of the voting population are voting one way it appears. I'm an outsider, but it seems that the issue is that not enough people are voting. Apologies if this is ill-informed, I'm an Australian so I'm quite possibly wrong.

awt 12y ago
They are voting the way they are meant to vote. PACs exist for a reason. Also, why vote? When democracy emerged in the U.S., the voting population was about 800,000. The current voting population is 206,000,000. The power of an individual's vote has decreased immensely. I use federal numbers because the federal government has most of the power now, as opposed to the states, in which an individual's vote is worth relatively more, but still massively less than it was at the time the constitution was written.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > why vote? When democracy emerged in the U.S., the voting population was about 800,000. The current voting population is 206,000,000. The power of an individual's vote has decreased immensely. I agree that the power to change the outcome of an election is minimal, roughly equal to every other voter. Voting does much more than change election outcomes; it signals the electorate's priorities. Win or lose, every vote from your neighborhood, district, town, county, etc. signals that people there care, and pressures elected officials to pay attention to them. Every vote for your issues, win or lose, signals your priorities. Your representatives' jobs depend on pleasing voters. Democrats elected in districts where people vote for gun rights are not going to push gun control in Congress (and vice versa for Republicans). Counties where 75% vote will get politicians' attention and have their issues addressed; those where 30% vote will be overlooked. And every non-vote in your neighborhood, district, town, county, etc. tells your elected officials that you don't care and that they can safely ignore you.
  - awt 12y ago
    If what voters thinks matters, why is so much money spent on campaigns? Answering my own question, I would say that it is because votes can be bought. Who is more powerful? Someone with $10M to spend on a campaign, or someone with the best political thinking who has no money to spend on a campaign?
    - hackuser 12y ago
      > If what voters thinks matters, why is so much money spent on campaigns? Hmmm... The obvious answer is: To persuade voters to think your way. But I suspect I misunderstand the question. > Who is more powerful? Someone with $10M to spend on a campaign, or someone with the best political thinking who has no money to spend on a campaign? Clearly the former. With $10M, you can persuade many voters to agree with you. But since that fits with my above post, I think I'm missing your point. In the end, however they are formed, it's still voters' opinions (and actions) that matter.