A representative sample doesn't vote, that's the problem. The people who show up tend to be white middle-aged homeowners. Youth voter turnout, for instance, is very low compared to the eligible population [1]
Do you know of any evidence that a representative sample votes?
Even if that's true, I think 100% voting is a worthwhile goal, because it removes any doubt. If voting is already perfectly representative, then nobody should have a problem with this initiative, because it would change nothing.
are we aligned on the understanding that representative sample means a reflection of the random population? As in not a representative proportion of all subsets, but just what you might see in a random place in the country.
I mentioned to you or in another subthread that a shift in the voter demographics can effect change.
It is a waste of energy. Yes it is quaint that people actually fought for this right, now logically, you should realize this is unnecessary duplication of efforts, and you have suggested that there should be no problem increasing that unnecessary duplication of effort.
Some people, and their entities, are more influential than others and will always be. The popular vote has limited utility.
This observation has nothing to do with alternative forms of governance. This observation is simply that here and now, there are better rules you can play by than even caring about the popular vote one bit.
Ok, I think we understand each other. If you know of some study that shows the current voting population is representative of the total population, I would be interested in seeing it.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...