[richmarr]

> An incumbent has over a 90% chance...

You're assuming that public officials are automata that don't suffer from risk aversion, don't need to raise money in close races, and don't change their behaviour based on whether they have public opinion behind them. I wouldn't bet on that being true.

[mhurron]

They can read. They can see that they have a 90% reelection chance with their peers as a group having disgustingly low approval ratings. They can see that they still don't have problems raising money with those low approval ratings.

They do not need to care about you.

Talking about Feinstein in particular -

* January 17, 2011 Approval rating measured at 43%

* May 12, 2011, Feinstein co-sponsored PIPA

* PIPA gets mass blow back

* 2012 Reelected

* 2013 moves to continue mass survailance

* After the 2016 FBI–Apple encryption dispute, Feinstein, along with Richard Burr, sponsored a bill that would be likely to criminalize all forms of strong encryption

* 2016 Reelected

She knows she doesn't need to give a damn about your issues with mass surveillance.

[richmarr]

It's incredibly easy to be this casually cynical, but reality doesn't match this simple worldview.

When you start to meet people in positions of power you realise that they're not a bunch of sleazy villains, they're complicated people who (for the most part) think they're doing the right thing in a difficult and often contradictory environment.

[vijayr]

You maybe right, but I have a hard time understanding how people can believe they are doing the "right thing", while trampling on their own citizens' privacy and basic rights.

I can understand if it is a super complicated trade treaty, but something straightforward like "don't spy on your people, that too with not much oversight etc" - is that too hard to understand?

[richmarr]

> I have a hard time understanding... trampling on their own citizens' privacy and basic rights

Confirmation bias goes a long long way.

Take gerrymandering, which is as undemocratic is it gets. If you already believed yourself to be one of the 'good guys', it wouldn't be hard to convince yourself that gerrymandering (as a tool of last resort) is an acceptable way to hold at bay the forces of moral degeneracy... especially when other 'good guys' tell you its okay, and you can find some character flaw or weakness in your opponent that you can use to licence your own.

Confirmation bias is well documented, but check out Daniel Effron's work on 'moral licencing'. He showed that people tend to horse-trade ethics, excusing biased or self-serving behaviour with the points scored from virtuous behaviour... one example being an experiment where the subjects exhibited increased racial bias when they'd previously been given an opportunity to state that they'd voted for Obama.

[EGreg]

That's why representative democracy is a broken and inefficient system that can be easily rigged (gerrymandering, poor turnout, bought politicians, media ignoring a candidate, media covering a candidate nonstop, broken promises, pulling a fast one etc.)

With today's advances in statistics and technology, people could be polled for their opinions on issues by hundreds of independent and transparent public polling companies. Just like jury duty but easier and on your phone. You can't buy all the people all the time. It's too expensive. But you can perpetuate the system that engulfs their representatives all of the time.

http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=212

[DrScump]

  2016 Reelected

No, she wasn't on the ballot.