[ballenf]

Yes they did. That's what elections are. You voted for representatives who you believed would exercise similar value judgments as your own to all the thousands of complicated situations and decisions that the government faces. Referendums have their place, but imo, this is a terrible situation to have one.

A resolution asking "should tax breaks be part of the incentive options allowed to be given to?" would be ok. But I think the resounding "no" that vote would get is why it won't happen.

[gist]

Exactly. And this idea that everyone should get a vote on every issues also assumes that people casting a vote are smart enough and will take the time to fully consider all possible nuances to 'vote' in the right way. Not to mention the fact that people are not all the same and/or stand to gain or lose in the same way. Someone in the neighborhood is quite different than Fred Wilson living in a $35m condo in NYC (and yes he does by the way..)

The election process along the same lines is certainly less than perfect. But is is way better than having referendums and letting people decide all issues by popular vote.

[zelon88]

So how is it a choice then? If whoever you vote for is going to go against the people because of "complex political reasons" how is voting a choice? How is it putting your $0.02 in? If he voted for a different representative they probably would have also voted against his wishes.

Because they're all bought and paid for by lobbyists.

[live4everjones]

I voted for the CEO of Warby Parker?

[chimeracoder]

> Yes they did. That's what elections are. You voted for representatives who you believed would exercise similar value judgments as your own to all the thousands of complicated situations and decisions that the government faces.

You're assuming New York has democratic elections, which is a reasonable assumption if you don't live in New York, but is unfortunately very incorrect.

New York government is not a democracy; the ruling parties have constructed a series of arcane, layered laws which allow the parties to essentially appoint people to nominally-elected positions, which bypasses the entire spirit of democracy[0]. The parties are controlled by local private clubs, which have hefty membership fees (my local club starts at $1000/year, which I could technically afford if I wanted to, but many of my neighbors could not).

Unlike most states, we don't have the right to have direct ballot initiatives. We don't even have the right to vote against unopposed candidates if we don't like them - if a candidate runs unopposed in a primary[1], the primary is cancelled altogether. So, for example, Kirsten Gillibrand literally did not have a primary election in 2018 - she won the nomination with a total of zero votes.

[0] as just one example, just the tip of the iceberg: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/nyregion/new-york-politic...

[1] and remember, the party gets to approve whether a candidate receives a primary challenge in most state races

[MockObject]

> and remember, the party gets to approve whether a candidate receives a primary challenge in most state races

This makes sense. Primaries are internal party business. It's totally up to them to decide how they select their candidates.

The general elections are where the citizens get their say.

[chimeracoder]

> This makes sense. Primaries are internal party business. It's totally up to them to decide how they select their candidates.

New York is the only state which conducts primaries this way.

> The general elections are where the citizens get their say.

No, because general elections are uncontested (due to gentleman's agreements between the two parties not to run candidates in each others' districts, and laws making it infeasible for third parties to do anything but cross-endorse the major parties).

[dragonwriter]

> New York is the only state which conducts primaries this way.

That argumentum ad populum does not invalidate the offered justification.

[chimeracoder]

> That argumentum ad populum does not invalidate the offered justification.

That "offered justification" doesn't refute the original point, which is that exists solely as away to have an elite minority subvert or disregard the will of the people.

The irony in pejoratively using the term argumentum ad populum in a thread that is literally about popular vote is not lost on me.