[asokoloski]

I suppose the question is not whether these people are a completely accurate representation of the country as a whole, but whether they will effectively serve as a dampening factor on corporate lobbyists. We shouldn't compare them against an unreachable ideal, but ask if they'll be an improvement on what we have now. I think they probably will.

[rayiner]

Do we want them to "serve as a dampening factor on corporate lobbyists?"

https://news.gallup.com/poll/187919/big-government-named-big...

> When asked to choose among big government, big labor and big business, Americans overwhelmingly name big government as the biggest threat to the country in the future. The 69% choosing big government is down slightly from a high of 72% in 2013, the last time Gallup asked the question, but is still one of the highest percentages choosing big government in Gallup's 50-year trend.

As of 2015, 70% of Americans viewed big government as the "biggest threat" versus just 25% listing big businesses.

[jazzyk]

>As of 2015, 70% of Americans viewed big government as the "biggest threat" versus just 25% listing big businesses.

Wherever the government tries to "regulate" - unprecedented wealth transfer from ordinary people to special interests follows: the health-care(?) mafia, the higher education mafia, etc. Always sold as "think of the elderly/children".

Big Government -> Lobbyists (corruption) -> Corporatism

(In the US, Europe is a bit different, because lobbying is not as predatory)

[JediWing]

The problem as it's explained is that those being regulated are the ONLY ones presenting informed commentary on the issue.

Surely hearing a perspective from someone striving (at the very least) to be objective rather than ONLY hearing from someone who has clear bias on the issue (the corporation to be regulated) is more likely to be a good thing than a bad thing.

[jonnybgood]

Big business can be easily qualified. But how do you qualify big government? What is not a big government? Is there such a thing as an objectively small government i.e. not attached to a political ideology?

[jackcosgrove]

> Is there such a thing as an objectively small government i.e. not attached to a political ideology?

Many local governments are like this, with explicitly non-partisan elections (although partisanship may be implicit). More likely, the powers and resources of the local government are limited such that there's no "slack" for partisanship, and they are literally just trying to keep the lights on.