I am not sure how any of that is relevant to my point that the average citizen is essentially powerless to do little more about any of it besides vote.
I am not sure how any of that is relevant to my point that the average citizen is essentially powerless to do little more about any of it besides vote.
It is the only power the average citizen has ever had in this country and it is such a great power that politicians play all kinds of games with it (who can and can't vote and when and where and how) to try and make sure it comes out the way that THEY want.
But people have been repeatedly told that it isn't that much power. In reality, it is the ultimate power if you exercise it properly and thoughtfully.
It is relevant to the point in that it is looking at why people tend to vote the way they do. Having a data-based understanding of the how and why gives you the means to change things.
You have a partial point. The weakness is that you can only exercise it at election time. Between elections, the elected official has pretty much a free hand. Even at election time, often the choices aren't that great. For example, many people think Gavin Newsom should have been recalled. He survived the recall election easily because the vast majority of his FIFTY opposing candidates were worse. No one in the handful of opponents who were probably okay could possibly get enough votes to unseat Newsom. I think it was Tim who wrote about that recall election.
The reality is that you often simply have to chose the best of a bad lot--because the current voting patterns have not created disincentives for bad people. Rarely have politicians been punished for bad behavior... so they now tend to behave even more badly.
The ultimate problem is that you cannot fix the system because the foxes are in charge of the henhouse. There is no incentive for change on the part of the people who CAN implement change. This is both a political and societal problem.
This is why many people have come to the conclusion are are heading to the conclusion that the system must be destroyed in order to fix it. We are far more likly to get to critical mass on that attitude (and the resulting action) than we are to get actual substantive reform.
People coming to that conclusion need to study the history of other times and places where people came to the same conclusion. They are not thinking things through. On substantive reform, most of the same people who advocate destroying the system are also the ones actively obstructing substantive reform especially among elected officials.
I am not sure how any of that is relevant to my point that the average citizen is essentially powerless to do little more about any of it besides vote.
It is the only power the average citizen has ever had in this country and it is such a great power that politicians play all kinds of games with it (who can and can't vote and when and where and how) to try and make sure it comes out the way that THEY want.
But people have been repeatedly told that it isn't that much power. In reality, it is the ultimate power if you exercise it properly and thoughtfully.
It is relevant to the point in that it is looking at why people tend to vote the way they do. Having a data-based understanding of the how and why gives you the means to change things.
You have a partial point. The weakness is that you can only exercise it at election time. Between elections, the elected official has pretty much a free hand. Even at election time, often the choices aren't that great. For example, many people think Gavin Newsom should have been recalled. He survived the recall election easily because the vast majority of his FIFTY opposing candidates were worse. No one in the handful of opponents who were probably okay could possibly get enough votes to unseat Newsom. I think it was Tim who wrote about that recall election.
The reality is that you often simply have to chose the best of a bad lot--because the current voting patterns have not created disincentives for bad people. Rarely have politicians been punished for bad behavior... so they now tend to behave even more badly.
The ultimate problem is that you cannot fix the system because the foxes are in charge of the henhouse. There is no incentive for change on the part of the people who CAN implement change. This is both a political and societal problem.
This is why many people have come to the conclusion are are heading to the conclusion that the system must be destroyed in order to fix it. We are far more likly to get to critical mass on that attitude (and the resulting action) than we are to get actual substantive reform.
People coming to that conclusion need to study the history of other times and places where people came to the same conclusion. They are not thinking things through. On substantive reform, most of the same people who advocate destroying the system are also the ones actively obstructing substantive reform especially among elected officials.