[darawk]

> This seems to me the wrong mentality. What you ultimately care about is the leverage you have over the entity holding your data. In most cases you have more leverage over the state via voting and lobbying.

I would argue the exact opposite. I've always found private companies to be far more responsive to my needs than government.

[arvinsim]

Their responsiveness is contingent to how it affects their bottom line.

[rbinv]

Of course, but the government doesn't really have such a bottom line, so it doesn't exactly need to care.

[ambicapter]

Other than, you know, their jobs...

[scarface74]

You realize the President won the election while losing the popular vote and more voters vote Democratic than Republican in both the House and the Senate bit because of both gerrymandering and the 2 Senators per state regardless of the population, Republicans have a disproportionate number of seats?

This isn’t meant to be a partisan statement, more to the point of how the voting system works in the US.

Besides that, people aren’t going to vote based on privacy. All a politician has to do is tell “terrorism” or “think about the children” and they can pass anything they want.

Not to mention that most regulations come via agencies run by unelected officials and judges are unelected and have a lifetime appointment.

[toast0]

No US president has won the popular vote, because no popular vote has been held. The rules of the contest influence the number of people who vote.

I do agree though, health care data handling is probably too niche to get people diselected, most voters are going to be more woried about other issues.

[scarface74]

A popular vote has been held. People who don’t vote are by definition not part of the popular vote.

[theduder99]

have you ever been to a post office?