This absurdly reductionist view of participatory politics comes up again and again. What are you trying to add to the conversation? Do you think that this notion is new? Or that the rest of us haven't considered it?
Instead of a pithy but pointless HN comment, let me suggest a book for you that might expand your thinking on this topic:
It would be more helpful if you expanded on why it's a bad argument. Off the top of my head:
> They don't want it, as evidenced by their not voting for it, so they won't get it
Was there a vote on it? When exactly?
Here's a book about how election results can change people's opinions on topics. It applies here because X. I used to think Y, but it changed my thinking to Z. I'd highly recommend it.
Not that GP is any better, but hey... And to be fair, the guy is practically trolling, whether intentional or not.
You're right of course disagreement should be explained better.
But he is responding to a one-line meme whose only purpose is to establish learned helplessness and end discussion that massively oversimplifies a very complex issue and is essentially copy pasted in any article here that even touches on politics. It gets quite exhausting engaging, having long in depth discussion about how this view is overly simplistic on every single thread only to have it appear again tomorrow, exactly the same as before.
I think downvotes and silence is the correct move here.
You're right. I got a bit impatient there. This argument seems to come up again and again and no amount of reason and explanation seems to be able to overcome it, even to the point of convincing its adherents to read what others have said about it.
This notion ("the people get exactly what they vote for") goes back to Ancient Greece; it's not like its a novel topic.
I don't think it's that straightforward. It's hard to vote for something that doesn't come up for a vote. And it doesn't come up for a vote if the right people don't want it to come up for a vote.
"The people" aren't given the opportunity to vote on many things, yet the people they elect do vote. The people they elect often side with their supporters (especially financial ones) on issues that are important to said supporters. A candidate can use their NRA/pro gun status as part of their platform and it will have a meaningful impact on the turnout.
Logically if the US electorate cared even half as much about [topic x] as they do about guns - candidates would care too and "democracy" would follow... no?
(I'm not bashing the US, just taking gun control as an example where a passionate popular view is reflected democratically)
Instead of a pithy but pointless HN comment, let me suggest a book for you that might expand your thinking on this topic:
http://www.thriftbooks.com/w/do-elections-matter/1470236/?gc...