|
That might be true of a Direct Democracy. But an Indirect Democracy insulates politicians from the will of the voters. Votes do little more than bludgeon politicians out of office as a last resort. As long as politicians don't upset voters too much, the two incumbent parties retain power and continue doing as they please (which isn't all that different from each other, since the optimal behavioral strategy is to hug the center of the spectrum). So to some extant, I blame the structure of the government. But given this situation, I also blame the voters. Polarization is pretty high. Voters readily pledge loyalty to the party line rather than individually consider the pros and cons of each platform's ideas. Voters don't realize that the less precommitted they are to their party, the more pressure they exert over congress. I.e. the less confident politicians are that the same demographics will reelect them, the more likely politicians will actually pay attention to the voters. pg has noticed this, among others. Unfortunately, zealotry is a tough nut to crack. It's hardwired into human psychology. One can find it in politics, religion, sports, warfare, the dynamics of any group in general. And consciously or not, the parties encourage it (since each party's optimal signalling strategy is to differentiate themselves as much as possible). The media encourages this too, definitely consciously since it feeds their bottom line. Given Indirect Democracy is here to stay, I think the worst problem is the lobby system. Not only has the power of the voters been diluted, but it's taken a backseat to that of the lobbyists. I'm not saying corporations are conspiratorially colluding to directly control congress, but each corporation's individual bribes certainly incentivizes the government's behavior, and arguably more so than the people's votes. |