Hacker News Reader

Comment by TallGuyShort | Hacker News Reader

"Write your representative" is the standard response in the US too, and I'm honestly done with it. I've written many, many letters to senators. I've placed phone calls. I've donated to candidates I support. I've taken a day off work to attend what was supposed to be a town hall but that ended up just being propaganda and thinly veiled hints at donating to related election campaigns, with so little time for public comment that I never got a word in.

And yet I've only ever received token replies and seen zero change. No one I ever really wanted to vote in to a major seat has won. And Congress really can't see what's wrong with the Equifax breach on their own?

Fuck all of them. I've given up on our political system maintaining much more than panem et circenses.

View on HN

You're not wrong. A Princeton study found the average voters have almost no impact on policy anymore. However corporations have taken over that position of influence.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...

I personally believe it is because politicians have to listen to voter blocks. Since American families and homeowners have fallen to record lows they have no consistent voter base from individuals anymore. Homeowners and Familiy's used to be the two biggest voting blocks. They no longer are; businesses are the only voters that will be guaranteed to stick around until the next election.

>Since American families and homeowners have fallen to record lows they have no consistent voter base from individuals anymore.

No. This is just factually incorrect.

American are moving at historically low levels.

https://slate.com/business/2018/06/americans-are-moving-less...

Homeownership is certainly not at historic lows.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/homeownership-rate-reaches... (data for 2017, 2018 is higher: https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/index.html )

Anymore? Was there ever a time when the "common" person had a strong influence on government policy, relative to wealthy people or large coalitions?

Note that I'm referring to policy, not rhetoric.

I deeply understand your frustration. It takes a lot of work even here in Canada to get political will to take proactive action.

It's only harder in the US. You guys have ten times the people per representative which means political victory is governed by opinion polling and, unfortunately, monied advertising. Citizens United made it ten times worse.

From my vantage point in Toronto, it looks like action towards fixing the political system is the top priority right now. So many things are wrong that it's hard to figure out where to even start.

There will be a breaking point though. As demographics continue to change if the GOP continues to win despite losing the popular vote I can see some sort of general protest or riot forming.

I can't name a single issue that I could give 2 shits about that was different before the GOP won the last election. The Democrat's healthcare plan sent my premiums through the roof, there's still virtually no transparency or accountability in the way billing is done unless I lawyer up, medicinal cannabis is still illegal, and my Facebook feed is still inundated with friends going to GoFundMe for healthcare bills because they still haven't bought insurance as required by law. Still in the middle east too. If that's what the Democrats are so proud of, then fuck popular vote.

There are other problems too. The broken political system changes the character of the people that run. Most first world countries have sane healthcare systems. Most also have saner political systems.

Well, if you only name the things that got worse or haven’t improved of course everything sucks.

I named the biggest achievement I heard cited from Democrats seeking reelection.

I am not from the US but it's the same thing everywhere.

The only place where citizens seem to have an impact is Switzerland where with enough signatures you can request a referendum. Good luck implementing that in other countries.

Somebody one day told me this little bit of wisdom:

In a dictatorship, the government wants you to shut the hell up but in a democracy they let you keep talking because they don't listen and do not give a single fuck about you.

The world's political systems are broken.

I for one do not bother to vote anymore and the cynicism transpires in my daily life where on many issues I find myself thinking that if nobody cares, why should I?

That's progress apparently.

I struggle a lot with the idea of the tyranny of the 51%, though. I don't like Jeremy Clarkson's politics, but I really like a point he frequently makes in his columns: everyone loves the idea of a jury of one's own peers until they realize that their peers are all idiots. Same goes for democracy. It sounds great, until 51% of people start making dumb decisions about how you should run your life.

Example: a slightly larger majority of my town than that wanted a slightly better deal of waste management, so they voted for a town-wide contract. Now I'm forced to pay for a recycling program that is so inconvenient I pay to use a different one anyway. Enough people (that it will probably happen) are now pushing for a measure to make it as convenient as it used to be, but raise taxes to pay for all the abuse that ruined things. I don't want better voting, I want the ability to opt out and be left alone.

This isn't actually that complex a problem. 51% don't get to make decisions, 66% do. The correct answer is almost always "no" so making it more difficult to get to a "yes" from the decision making body is (within reason) a good thing. This has the added benefit of forcing people to take a good hard look at what they propose because it has to make sense to everyone to have a chance to pass.

Yeah I absolutely love the solution of requiring a supermajority. I wish it was required in most instances and that we actually required it when it is already required by the Constitution in practice. In the US Constitution it's only used to convict, override or expel people who were elected by simple majority (or in some case,s less, though I like the idea of the electoral college not giving all power to a couple of states), and for ratifying treaties and constitutional amendments. Of course, even though alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment, you can apparently prohibit anything else by having it "scheduled". And when was the last time the President waited for Congress's permission for our foreign relations, be they treaties or war?

California has a pretty extensive referendum system (although not as far-reaching as Switzerland). Overall I think it’s a positive. Although one of the dumbest and most destructive policy in California (proposition 13) was introduced by referendum. And I believe Switzerland has been known to show its nasty xenophobic side from time to time. So it’s a double-edged sword.

It's downright dangerous. Putting major decisions directly in the hands of the people requires well informed citizens and balanced, independent media coverage. While it's not a problem exclusive to the US, judging by recent political developments and voting outcomes I'd say a large number of people are particularly prone to manipulation and populist narratives.

> The only place where citizens seem to have an impact is Switzerland where with enough signatures you can request a referendum. Good luck implementing that in other countries.

That "works" in Switzerland because Switzerland is an entire country with a smaller population than New York City. Even then, it doesn't prevent pretty horrible laws from passing in Switzerland, because a majority of the electorate can be convinced to demonize a minority pretty easily.

Direct democracy like this doesn't scale up well at all, and we can look at California's proposition system to how that turns out at a larger scale.

I feel the pain and feel similarly. Sorry that we're sharing this space of despair in our political institutions.

The town hall comment jumps out to me. I have this sense that more local communication, or dare I say "organizing" -- not in a politically-specific sense but in a more general "community getting to know each other" sense -- is the way forward.

Has anyone ever participated in a town hall or other forum for communicating with fellow citizens that has gone well? I'm curious to know.

I've also been very active in my local metro district and HOA meetings. Unfortunately, even at that level the company that began developing the neighborhood will hold majority power of the board for, at their current rate of development, the next 40 years. They have attorney's that advise them not to speak with us, and we pay for those attorneys. Currently a large chunk of my property tax is paying interest on the developer's debt. Those meetings go about as well as you think. I've been to town council meetings and informal meet-the-mayor and meet-the-city-councilperson coffee events, and was referred to email their attorney. The only time I've seen my town council get anything done, it was either (a) due to a massive showing by a think-of-the-children type group, or (b) a company with massive pockets.

You're not alone friend.

Which is why I say we need a modern voting system. One vote for one person to one candidate creates this pro/anti party system. There are other options to consider, but of course the incumbents would fight it tooth and nail.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com