[pdkl95]

This (mostly) isn't laziness. Voter turnout is falling because people are increasingly disaffected.

As people realize the majority does not rule[1], they are choosing to not waste their time. When someone has spent the last 30+ years watching politicians sell their future so so business and the rich can concentrate even more wealth, why should they bother participating in Democracy Theater?

Call these people lazy at your own risk. Far too many people are sitting right at the homeless/hungry threshold that can trigger rebellions/uprisings. We are dangerously close a critical mass of people deciding that "The Hamptons are not a defensible position."[3]

[1] Actual policy changes correlate well with the preferences of the economic elite[2]. The average citizen's preferences have almost no correlation to the same policy changes.

[2] http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fil...

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK0jeJ8wxg

[solotronics]

This is dangerously close to what I perceive to be a french revolution type situation. Whatever problems we have now are much better than mob rule. Considering an automation and AI future likely many of the people here would be targeted by these disaffected masses. Can tech keep people connected and on the right path without it backfiring? We're going to find out!

[Spooky23]

I'm talking local politics not national. Your local alderman is voting for stupid parking rules or not paying for park maintenance because people are lazy and disinterested.

I don't say that with any malice. I'm among the ranks of the lazy too unless I'm pissed off about something! Try sitting through a city council or school board meeting -- it's awful.

[jancsika]

> As people realize the majority does not rule[1], they are choosing to not waste their time.

That points to a particularly brittle concept of democracy that needs to change.

Voters shouldn't have to gain a national consensus to feel like their party or idea actually matters.

[mistermann]

Does the concept have to change, or the democracy? From where I sit, no one's party or idea does matter, it is all theater.

> We are dangerously close a critical mass of people deciding that "The Hamptons are not a defensible position.

I think this may be right, but the question is, will the US military shoot its own citizens? If a few things go the wrong way in the next decade or two, I think we're going to find out. Rather than stocking up on more guns and ammo, I think enthusiasts should make sure they have helmets, body armor, and some sort of a means of communication.

[pdkl95]

> will the US military shoot its own citizens?

There is actually evidence[1] that they wouldn't. Soldiers tend to actually take things like their oath to defend the constitution seriously. They also tend to get actual training... unlike the police, who already shoot a disgusting number of people each year.

Stocking up on guns is a somewhat[2] outdated tactic, and everybody loses if this turns into a shooting war. We are far too interdependent; loss of even "insignificant" amounts of infrastructure can easily have a "trigger effect"[3] that cascades across the remaining infrastructure.

> party

That's a significant part of the problem. We need to learn to avoid tribalism/factionalism asap. Most people can discuss specific issues, but when a group identification becomes part of the foundation for your identity, disagreement becomes an insult. We're seeing a lot of this now, unfortunately.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10752635#10753894

[2] individual circumstances will vary

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKELMR6wACw

[mistermann]

> We need to learn to avoid tribalism/factionalism asap.

100% agree, but good luck when a multibillion dollar media machine pushes exactly that. Most of the "enlightened" people I know get their news from The Daily Show and comparable sources.

[jancsika]

> Does the concept have to change, or the democracy? From where I sit, no one's party or idea does matter, it is all theater.

I was responding to what I thought was a conception of democracy as "majority rules", which is a simplistic and dangerous notion of democracy.

What you are describing is something I do not understand. For example, how is Education Secretary Betsy Devos' advocacy for for-profit charter schools and vouchers not a direct representation of the ideas held by a large majority in her party?

[Spooky23]

Soldiers tend to follow orders. And the crazy gun people are also loading up on body armor.

That doesn't really matter, organized soldiers always slaughter an untrained rabble. The armed wacko thing is all about intimidating the police and their fellow citizen in a time of disorder.

[mistermann]

> The armed wacko thing is all about intimidating the police and their fellow citizen in a time of disorder.

How do you know? I'm not an armed wacko, but I am generally of the belief that the US government primarily serves corporate interests and the upper class and that democracy is mostly theater.

[Spooky23]

Talk to a prepper, they'll tell you.

A not-insignificant number of people that I grew up are in that worldview. It's incredibly frightening.

[mistermann]

Well, if you are a prepper (you have prepared for the breakdown of society), and society does indeed break down, intimidating anyone coming for your supplies would probably be necessary.