Bernie Sanders exposes billionaires who are buying US government.

[Elok]

How could Mitt Romney represent popular opinion better, besides becoming more like Barack Obama or John McCain or George W. Bush or some other major candidate?

I'm sorry that whatever obscure combination of preferences you have isn't perfectly represented by one of the two major candidates. But the aggregate combination of all voters is represented very well.

We have how many hundred million people in this country, and the majority, at least, are represented by two candidates?

[kentonio]

There is a very clear distinction between the two. One is verifiable fact (if it's going to be persuasive), the other is verifiable lie. Perhaps you are confused as to what the two are?

I'm saying the line between the two is usually a lot more muddy than you seem to think.

It obviously doesn't have the same effect on everyone.

Correct, it works on idiots all the time and everyone else a lot of the time.

Yes, and when mangoes taste so good to me it's just their way of getting me to eat them and plant the seed so they can procreate ... the bastards have tricked me into eating the food I wanted to eat for their own nefarious ends!

You are apparently more likely to buy from a place that you perceive as not using manipulative advertising. That in itself can be an example of manipulative advertising.

(Seriously, there are plenty of ads which are simply giving verifiable information. Yes, they do this because they get something out of it, but that doesn't change that it is also a service to the consumer looking for that information.)

No they aren't just giving out verifiable information, they're targeting a certain customer base in a certain way. The result may seem more ethical to you, and it may indeed produce a more honest advert, but it's still not them doing anything noble, they're just trying to get people to part with money.

It's a strawman. You are arguing against a point of view that I have not professed to hold. (And which I have given good reason to assume I do not hold.)

This whole conversation has reached the point where I can't actually remember why it started, what was originally said or why. Given how dull I'm finding it, I can only imagine how bad it must be for those poor people who aren't even involved. I suggest we stop talking immediately, start drinking heavily, and think seriously about the bad things we've done here.

[Jaguar]

We have how many hundred million people in this country, and the majority, at least, are represented by two candidates?

The majority - on each individual issue - is represented by at least one, and usually both of the major candidates. Democracies get exactly the government they deserve.

[Jaguar]

x-post in response to jaguar.



it's not me. i'm not american and i don't really care about its politics, but you are talking nonsense.

if you look at countries which have systems of proportional representation for parliamentary elections, you see a great variety of political views represented. if you look at countries that have two party systems, you see a fight over the 'centre' which leaves large numbers of people essentially unrepresented. this is a well known effect of such systems and it's been written about extensively.

That's fine. My claim is precisely that the politicians represent the center. If your view on an issue doesn't gain any traction, that's because it isn't the center, and a democratic society shouldn't be expected to adopt it.

[Jaguar]

That isn't what voters say.

This causes voter apathy, voting for someone who you don't actually support, low voter turnout and so on.

If you want to ignore what people report, and how voting changes/polls change, you can.

But you can't claim to have your thinking based on evidence.

JM

Plenty of people can be dissatisfied with majority rule, because everyone is a minority somewhere. This isn't hard to understand, and you're deliberately being obtuse so you can continue your narrative of oppression without admitting that policy is a consequence of voters' opinions. We live in a very democratic society. The majority gets its way, for better or for worse.

[Jon Miller]

You are ignoring the data.

People vote for candidate A because he is not candidate B, not because they want candidate A to win.

That is what people say. And that is the truth of american politics.

Your claim that that makes candidate A the politician that america wants is stupid.

You can by the same logic say that Iraq was a democracy. Or that Russia is a well functioning democracy.

JM

[Jaguar]

Yes, I am ignoring your data, because your data is irrelevant. You're doing absolutely nothing to show that politicians fail to represent the majority. You're not using the sort of data that would actually refute my claim.

"People are unhappy" doesn't support "Politicians fail to represent the majority." They aren't the same thing. People can be against majority rule policy - it's majority, not unanimity. What would support your argument is the challenge I issued you, which you ignored.

Name a time when a politician did something with <40% support from his constituents. Name one.

Or, alternatively, answering this would also support your argument.

How could Mitt Romney represent popular opinion better, besides becoming more like Barack Obama or John McCain or George W. Bush or some other major candidate?

You ignored that one too.

I suspect this is because - once someone points out a fault in your position - you quickly pick yourself up and pretend like it never happened, instead of updating your priors or trying to explain why.

[Jon Miller]

It is difficult to find the poll numbers for the past, so I am still looking.

People dont like Mitt not because of what his platform is. That is a crucial component of the problem. Politicians don't follow their platform (see Obama)

JM

[Jon Miller]

This is by the way an example of where you are not thinking. Or being dishonest.

The point isn't that americans don't get the platforms they want (The centrist ones/etc which I agree is due to the two party system and is maybe not the best system but isn't terrible). The point is that politicians don't follow the platforms (in important ways). This is because of the influence of rich donors (private/public unions/business/finance/wealthy individuals).

JM

[Jon Miller]

I believe TARP was an example of something with less than 40% public support, but I have a hard time finding old polls.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I admit that this

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/

was a surprise to me.



It makes me think less of 'liberal' people.

JM

[Jaguar]

Evidence does show that politicians don't always follow their platforms. I agree with that.

I'm less certain this has to do with donors, as you claim. The evidence that would support your claim would be examples where politicians slip in a few platform changes that donors like but regular voters don't. There are some possible examples of this, but most of them have alternate explanations, or don't have much evidence of help from donors.

For example, Obama isn't as dovish as he promised he would be on foreign policy, but he doesn't get contributions from defense contractors - Republicans do - so donations aren't the likely motive here. Votes or practical concerns probably are.

Obama also hasn't done some of his campaign promises because he hasn't been able to. There's room for debate on how much filibustering should be done, etc, but again, this doesn't have to do with donors.

The best example would probably be tax code, law, and financial regulation. Tax codes and laws get more complicated (to the benefit of rich lawyers), which isn't very popular. Financial regulation is sometimes less robust than voters want.

[C0ckney]

That's fine. My claim is precisely that the politicians represent the center.

as i pointed out that is an inevitable result of your system. the problem, which i also pointed out, is that this leaves large numbers of people unrepresented, voting for the lesser evil, holding their noses and voting, call it what you will. it's not healthy for a democracy to exclude large numbers of people from the national conversation.

if you present people with a binary choice between the 'drink piss' party and the 'eat ****' party then people may well vote to drink piss, but that doesn't mean that their actual preference is to drink piss. it should surprise no one when large numbers become disillusioned with such a system.

[Elok]

The majority - on each individual issue - is represented by at least one, and usually both of the major candidates. Democracies get exactly the government they deserve.

Yes, but having only two choices is decidedly suboptimal for the purposes of accurately representing public opinion. Libertarians have three choices: they can support Democrats for their social policies and forsake their economic wishes, or support the Republicans and have it the other way around, or vote for the actual Libertarian party and watch their vote disappear. The staying power of Ron Paul indicates that there are a sizable number of passionate Libertarians in this country, but the two-party system keeps them from ever getting a voice in anything like proportion to their numbers. And if you, for example, care deeply about the environment, you're screwed. The Dems are theoretically interested in the environment, but it's their fifteenth priority, while the GOP are still undecided whether "climate science" is a real thing. Green Party? Wuzzat?

If our goal is to have our leaders represent the varied interests of their constituents, more parties would obviously be better. There are limits, of course--twenty parties would render the government immobile--but I think we could do better than two.

[Fake Boris]

The majority - on each individual issue - is represented by at least one, and usually both of the major candidates. Democracies get exactly the government they deserve.

This summarizes your issue.

There's no such thing as "one" democracy that yields perfectly representative results.

As usual, you're falling for a strict and literal interpretation of principles, due to your lack of diversity in experience, crystallized intellectualism, and never being on the receiving end of those principles.