[9question1]

You greatly overestimate the quality of the will of the people. Just because you don't like certain outcomes because they are stupid doesn't mean that those outcomes aren't what people wanted. Democratic institutions are a much more accurate way of reflecting the will of the people than most other attempts to measure that, for many reasons including the existence of people who don't respond to surveys but vote.

[greenavocado]

Democratic institutions can be subverted with first past the post voting systems and the illusion of choice amongst the most vocal and well funded parties

[CamperBob2]

You know what the technical term for a subverted democracy is? "Democracy."

Also known as, "Five people with an IQ of 90 outvoting four people with an IQ of 110," or "One person in Iowa canceling two votes in California."

[llamaimperative]

Eh, the (growing) insanity of the electoral college is not a necessary feature of a democracy.

[CamperBob2]

It is as far as this one's concerned.

[llamaimperative]

No, not necessary, just (currently) Constitutionally mandated. Those are not the same thing.

[CamperBob2]

Your options for getting rid of it are Congressional ratification with an overwhelming majority (LOL), a Constitutional convention (a horror too frightening to contemplate, given the people who would be involved), or guns. Which do you prefer?

[_DeadFred_]

It's also a recipe for a tyranny of the majority and a horrible form of government.

[phyzix5761]

> Democratic institutions are a much more accurate way of reflecting the will of the people

You're right but that's not what we have in the US. We have a Constitutional Republic. Elected representatives write the laws. People are not voting directly on laws and issues (on a federal level). I'm not saying we should change it but for the parent comment to say that "The People decided this" is not an accurate statement.

That's all I meant with my comment.

[nico]

This is just false

> Study: Congress literally doesn’t care what you think

> Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies that ended up becoming law. In other words, they compared what the public wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all.

https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba

There are several articles about the study

[llamaimperative]

Another interpretation: when you sum a bunch of opinions you end up with a result that doesn’t look particularly like any of the inputs, and certainly not a large portion of them.

[toolz]

I think you're over-representing just how well opinion surveys can represent the actual will of the people.

To put this in a less politicized analogy, everyone will tell you they want to be rich, but how many people are willing to make sacrifices to become rich? It turns out many rich people today are rich because they didn't have to make very many sacrifices, while most everyone, including minimum wage employees, can become a millionaire. Mathematically it's not all that complex.

People will tell you what they want with some internalized model that isn't representative of the realistic trade-offs that would have to be made. So in effect what people say isn't based in the reality of what they actually want.

[s1artibartfast]

Do you realize this study uses completely subjective post-hoc assessment of what industry lobby's wanted?

[arrosenberg]

This is the wrong take. The system reflects the will of the people who the system deems important. The average person wants higher wages, shorter hours and cheaper cost of living w/r/t rent, food, fuel and health. Congress is reflecting none of those desires right now because they serves the needs of the oligarchic selectorate that has been funding unrestricted class warfare against regular people for the last 20 years.

[JumpCrisscross]

> average person wants higher wages, shorter hours and cheaper cost of living w/r/t rent, food, fuel and health. Congress is reflecting none of those desires

The average voter does not uniformly express these preferences.

[ImPostingOnHN]

I'd say the average voter actively wants at least 1 of these and has no problem with the others.

[arrosenberg]

Duh? Like, by definition, an average doesn't reflect uniform expression. The people who don't want those things are a minority, but they are getting their way, because the system reflects the desires of the elites, not the desires of the average.

[JumpCrisscross]

> people who don't want that are a minority, but they are getting their way

They’re the majority. Almost every voter puts pocketbook issues near the top of their list, but not so far up that they’re willing to be civically active about it unless it’s a crisis. Herego, we spend most of our non-crisis time on non-pocketbook issues.

[arrosenberg]

No, they aren't the majority. The elites that the system actually serves have successfully ignited a culture war that splits the average people on which issues are driving the economic problems. The overwhelming majority of Americans want higher wages and cheaper cost of living, they just can't agree on how to get there (by design).

Divide et impera.

[JumpCrisscross]

> overwhelming majority of Americans want higher wages and cheaper cost of living, they just can't agree on how to get there (by design)

By design? Or because it's hard? You really think the sole thing keeping us from having more for less is conspiracy?

[CamperBob2]

Almost every voter puts pocketbook issues near the top of their list, but not so far up that they’re willing to be civically active about it unless it’s a crisis.

We're not in a crisis now, but people voted in the last national election as if we were, because Fox News told them that we were.

[JumpCrisscross]

> because Fox News told them that we were

This is my problem with the “elites in control” hypothesis. It seems to rely on voters’ power existing, but being circumvented because said voters are too stupid to handle it.