[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?

[arrosenberg]

Not conspiracy - culture wars. Conspiracy is a part of that, but racial equality, immigration and abortion have all been wielded to great effect. It's certainly easier to create disruption than consensus, but the money is clearly backing disruption.

[JumpCrisscross]

> racial equality, immigration and abortion have all been wielded to great effect

There is plenty of evidence happiness is, in part, relative. I’m not convinced there aren’t voters who would rather be a little poorer than better off but not as much as that other group.

> easier to create disruption than consensus, but the money is clearly backing disruption

I’m moderately wealthy. Split time between New York and Wyoming. It’s certainly wild that a bunch of voters in rural Pennsylvania feel strongly about lowering my taxes so long as it pisses off some liberals. If I had more resources and were more self centred, I could see myself encouraging that.

[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.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> 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.

You are correct (except that it need only be a subset of voters).

Now that you've done a good job of elaborating on the hypothesis, what exactly is your problem with it?

[JumpCrisscross]

> what exactly is your problem with it?

It doesn't work. Its testable predictions preclude a good amount of extant politics, including practically all populism. Elites the world over are losing in democracies because they presupposed, from afar, that they knew what their constituents wanted. Voters' interests are complex, and they can't be so easily bought.

[CamperBob2]

Well, that's pretty much the size of it, isn't it?