Hacker News Reader

In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton received far more campaign contributions than her opponents but she still lost. Campaign contributions aren't sufficient to overcome negative voter sentiment.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16

US states are free to impose universal background checks on firearm purchases, and several have. It doesn't need to be done at the federal level.

It's not "false" in the sense that 1+1=3 is false, though you may disagree with it.

American democracy does not reflect the will of the monied, it reflects the will of the people, you just don't like what that aggregate will represents because it's not your will. No matter how much money gets dumped into elections, people actually have to vote in them, and you cannot serve in any elected capacity without first being elected.

Maybe the will of the people can be changed with money, and maybe it can be changed to reflect views that are ultimately harmful to the very people who hold those views, but it is the will of the people.

Wealth doesn't actually, literally, buy votes, and it is "1+1=3" kind of false to claim it does.

You may not like what your system of government produces as its outcomes, but it's exactly what it should be producing; a reflection of what its people want. I'm sorry it's not what you want, and I'm sorry that individual issue polling doesn't reflect reality, but when the polling actually matters, people vote differently than when a single issue is up for a non-binding, theoretical discussion.

> You may not like what your system of government produces as its outcomes, but it's exactly what it should be producing; a reflection of what its people want.

This is absolutely untrue, because representation is intentionally not proportional to population. Our electoral system produces a reflection of what some people want, and those people are typically from smaller, more conservative, less populated, less economically viable areas.

Because of this, US policy does not reflect the will of the majority on most major issues.

Most people support taxing the ultra-wealthy at a higher percentage of their income, but this is not US policy.

Most people support background checks on all firearms sales, but this is not US policy.

Most voters support campaign finance reform, but this is not US policy.

Most voters support a ban on Representatives actively trading stocks, but this is not US policy.

More than half of voters support at least some form of student loan forgiveness, but this is not US policy.

You can basically walk the link of current important issues, and find that the will of the people is not represented at the Federal level. I don't like what our system of government produces, not because it goes against what I want, but because it goes against what most people want. It is a majority held hostage by the tyranny of a minority, and that is becoming less and less tenable as time goes on.

Again, nothing I'm saying is "absolutely untrue" in any objective sense; you're saying you disagree with it sure, but it's not objectively false.

You claim "most people support" a bunch of things here, but how do you know? A poll conducted on one specific issue, without discussing tradeoffs? "If you could snap your fingers and get this for free with zero downside?" style polling options? They're not realistic and don't give people any stake, which means people will answer in ways they wouldn't otherwise if actually given the choice (and all its downsides).

These things you list aren't US policy because people don't actually want those things to be US policy. They trust their selected representative to dive into the details of those issues, and when those representatives do, those reps tend not to support them to the degree that you claim the people do.

You're upset your favorite things don't get the attention you want them to get, but that's the point; one person doesn't wholly determine anything in the US government. It's built to keep one group of people from crushing other groups of people, and it's working.

Does the NRA not represent the will of a group of people? If a group of people get together, put their money together and tell that group of people to sway politicians with that money, then you can reasonably say that that is the will of people, albeit, people with a specific issue on their mind.

I don't think it is the best system, but you can't say that PACs aren't working toward the will of the people that put the money behind them.

If you didn't realize we have the senate and the house of representatives, one is proportional to population and one is based on state-hood. I think it creates a reasonable balance, especially because small states would otherwise have almost no voice in the federal government. The densely populated cities in the US already have a lot of sway in general elections and especially in state-wide elections, which have a greater influence on their lives anyway. Making sure less-densely populated regions, which are vital for the country in their own way, is not a terrible thing, as much as that irks Democrats that would like more control.

I agree with your comment about representatives catering to special interests, bribes, etc. Their constituents aren't usually first or second in priority. Public corruption is a serious problem.

But as for the Senate and Presidency being decided by mechanisms that aren't directly tied to population—that's by design. The United States is comprised of 50 States that jointly gave up some of their sovereignty to become a republic. They're more than just administrative districts of a national government. Aforementioned issues aside, the House of Representatives is supposed to represent the will of the _people_ while the Senate is supposed to represent the will of the _States_. The Senate is the States' representation at the Federal level. (Indeed, before the 17th Amendment US Senators were elected by State legislatures, not popular vote. Part of the motivation for the 17th Amendment was—wait for it—corruption in the state legislatures!)

It may be that moving to more population-based representation scheme would alleviate some issues. It also brings a downside: less populated states would get steamrolled by the more populated ones. (This was the Virginia Plan at the Constitutional Convention.) The 10th Amendment explicitly states that any power not expressly granted to the Federal government by the Constitution is retained by the States (States' rights/sovereignty), so basing Senate representation on population rather than giving each State equal representation would disenfranchise some States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_U...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Plan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_...

edit: formatting