Comment by aerosmile | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aerosmile | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've been wondering what stops politicians from gaming the democratic system by introducing legislation that has short-term benefits for the electorate and long-term negative consequences for the country as a whole. I know that I wouldn't vote for someone like that, but I can't think of many people around me who wouldn't.

I suppose many would think of it this way: "what's good for the long-term future of the country is good for my kids, but that's not going to help them much if I can't pay the next month's rent, or if I have to work so much that I never get to see them and raise them properly. So why not vote for someone who will help me get more money and spend more time with my kids now?"

I mean, it's absolutely mind-blowing that there isn't an entire line around the corner of politicians pushing for higher minimum wage, free education, free healthcare, basic income, etc. There are obviously some voices supporting all those measures, but I am surprised those individuals are not more popular. I suppose this is a very basic political science question, but I don't have any background in this field and today's topic once again made me wonder what's stopping us from adopting that and many other similar measures. Surely, those who stand to benefit something from it in the short-term outnumber the people who are going to be negatively impacted?

Have you not noticed corporations and the very weathy fund almost all candidates? What you are saying only happens when we get money out of politics.

I can report that our 245 year experience with democracy has us on the verge of doing just that. Any day now...

Because the politicians are not really serving their electorate; they're beholden to their donors, which are corporations and mega-rich people.

Isn’t that a huge portion of the bills passed? Except the horizon is ~5-10 years.

Think about lack of progress on building a sustainable energy model, protecting long term social safety net, ensuring long term stability of the country, investing in multigenerational building and infrastructure practices.

Where do you get the idea that this isn't the very heart of every political campaign? There's a curve of course, where if you promise too much people don't see it as believable.

My first experience with this was high school. Freshman year the student body presidency was won by the fellow who promised that we would get sodas added to the machines (rather than the no-caffeine options that were then available). Bullshit. But he won. In his acceptance speech, he explained it straight out, and we all learned something.

Politicians gaming the system by promising short term benefits at the cost of long term gain happens alls the time. But, it's not quite so cynical as you think.

First, understand that while people definitely want short term gain, they also want long term gain. Most all people are decent to some extent, and want long term success for their family, community, country, planet, etc. So, keep that in mind, and then let's examine this:

> it's absolutely mind-blowing that there isn't an entire line around the corner of politicians pushing for higher minimum wage, free education, free healthcare, basic income, etc

There is widespread disagreement over whether this is a good idea in the short or long term. And, keep in mind, voters do want long term success! So, when half the country thinks policies like these would cause a descent into socialist chaos, it's not surprising that politicians can't win on these platforms.

Nevertheless, we are constantly dealing with the ramifications of policies politicians crafted for short term gain. The mortgage interest rate deduction is a great example -- politicians subsidized homeownership, which was very popular, and we are left dealing with the drastic ramifications of a totally messed up housing system. Similarly, guaranteeing loans to help people go to college -- very popular in the short term, but has led to the ballooning of education costs.

The difference between these policies, and the ones you mentioned, is that they passed during a period of relative national unity, so it was much easier to get them through Congress.

More than a dozen sitting members of Congress (of both political parties) have been in their seats for more than 36 years, so forgive me if I find these arguments about long-term and short-term interests moot.

Politicians care about getting elected and then re-elected, in that order. Somewhere much lower in their set of priorities is pushing policy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com