[keiferski]

This kind of fatalism is more and more common, and it can be hard to disagree with in a literal sense, but to me it mostly just indicates that democratic mechanisms need reform — and not that we ought to just stop caring and live with someone else deciding and democracy not “working.” Because that leads to some very bad situations, historically speaking.

I do like the idea of a tool that filters political speak from actual concrete proposals and likelihood of it being implemented.

[a9dhalaan]

Until you have reform in the sense of replacing the First-past-the-post voting with a more representative system that allows the survival of more than 2 centrist parties, or have a system where there are meaningful referendums at a meaningful frequency, then where is the value of being "politically informed" on new/current politics?

Democracy in many western nations, at least in the US, is more or less an illusion of choice. Being sucked into the liberal/republican squabbling, drama and even the occasional political issue is nothing more than mere entertainment for the peasant class. For lobbies and corporations, who actually have much more leverage into governance, then yea being politically informed for them is prudent.

[roenxi]

Democracy doesn't need reform, it works great. The real problem is people keep trying to ram tens or hundreds of solutions through a centralised system that can only be held accountable for 1 decision every few years and needs to concentrate on the military. There isn't a democratic way to process large numbers of issues without outsourcing the decision making because people can't think about that many disparate topics.

[drivingmenuts]

Or to put it another way:

There's nothing wrong with democracy. It's the people that are screwed up.

[keiferski]

Well that’s why I wrote democratic mechanisms, not democracy.