Hacker News Reader

> The electorate chose this. Freely and willingly.

I disagree with you.

In political systems that aren't effectively two party systems, parties that listen to what the population wants and needs emerge and get their share of the votes. These parties then get together and form a majority representing these needs in many ways. This makes listening to the population a winning strategy.

The US system is how much can you accommodate corporations held up against how little can you listen to the population and still get away with it. In a two party system, that is a lot.

I could write an example-scenario with two frozen pizza companies vs. 8 frozen pizza companies and which choices you'll end up with for dinner, but I think you get point.

It's called fair competition and America seems to have forgotten its benefits for the general population, both in politics and in business.

Pointing out people as idiots is not a solution. Pushing for systems that work, is.

>I disagree with you.

Okay. Well, you're going to have to provide practical examples on why decades of testimony and support for various policies (or the reps that push them) is somehow not a product of the electorate's own volition.

You have hypotheticals and a general model for what might alleviate the support (or implicit support for these policies). But you fail to address what I actually stated: the electorate IS voting for this. They have voted for this. They will continue to vote for this. You provided no evidence to negate this historical record. You provided an example of "two options vs many options" which completely and utterly misses the point I'm making.

>Pointing out people as idiots is not a solution.

Your words, not mine. I called them unqualified. However you've brought to mind a favorite quote that I'm going to modify:

"There are idiots in the market" -> "There are idiots in the electorate"

Let's not also forget that due to gerrymandering (for the house) and disproportionate rural control (for the Senate and Electoral College), the people in fact voted against this but we still end up ruled by a spiteful backward minority.

> The U.S. political system is listening to the electorate. Stop pretending it's not.

Relatively it listens more to donors and lobbyists than the average people. That is part of the system because the system has laws that allow it.

When nearly every candidate for high positions is subject to these pressures, they're very difficult to vote away.

I'm not saying the electorate isn't unqualified, divided by wedge issues, or demands and is sold more attention grabbing issues than NN by the media, but it's not the whole story.

>Relatively it listens more to donors and lobbyists than the average people.

People vote in representatives that listen to donors and lobbyists. It's not some magical event that happens. They are being voted in.

>but it's not the whole story.

Alright?

I get where you're coming from, but in reality more people voted for Clinton than Trump. More people voted for Dems in the House than Republicans. More people voted for Democratic Senators than Republican Senators.

So while a large voting bloc did vote for these people, it's not the will of the majority. It's just that America's democracy is kind of broken (not completely broken, but it's getting there).

I used the term electorate for the reasons you outlined. And the electorate is still a substantial part of the population. The difference between the "majority" and the "minority" is astoundingly small in terms of Republicans and Democrats.