I'm curious which country you reside in where congress does the will of the people because I'm in the US and that's definitely not true here.
EDIT: Getting a lot of hate on this comment so allow me to clarify what I meant.
In the US we have a Constitutional Republic meaning elected representatives write the laws. People are not voting directly on laws and issues (on a federal level). The parent comment said that "The People decided this" but that's not an accurate statement. Congress decided this regardless of what people actually wanted. In fact, the public was largely divided on whether they wanted a Federal reserve during this time.
You greatly overestimate the quality of the will of the people. Just because you don't like certain outcomes because they are stupid doesn't mean that those outcomes aren't what people wanted. Democratic institutions are a much more accurate way of reflecting the will of the people than most other attempts to measure that, for many reasons including the existence of people who don't respond to surveys but vote.
Democratic institutions can be subverted with first past the post voting systems and the illusion of choice amongst the most vocal and well funded parties
Your options for getting rid of it are Congressional ratification with an overwhelming majority (LOL), a Constitutional convention (a horror too frightening to contemplate, given the people who would be involved), or guns. Which do you prefer?
I'm not suggesting getting rid of it, stop with the hysterics. I'm saying it's not a necessary feature of a democracy, as you suggested in your original post.
It is a highly idiosyncratic design decision in one democracy. It is not at all functionally necessary to America's system, and it's certainly not necessary to any other, as proven by its conspicuous absence from said democratic systems.
Five stupid people outvoting four dumb people is a natural outcome in every democratic system. One person outvoting two based on geographic location is not a natural outcome in every democratic system.
It's not that hard to understand if you take off your ideology blinkers for a moment and read the words in front of you.
> the electoral college is not a necessary feature of a democracy.
You offered two traits of "democracy"
1. 5 low IQ voters outvote 4 high IQ votes
2. 1 voter in geography X can outvote 2 voters in geography Y
Trait 1 is a necessary feature of a democracy.
Trait 2 is not a necessary feature of a democracy.
You placing the two together in a list to describe "Democracy" is a category error.
Trait 2 is an idiosyncratic design feature of exactly one democracy, and it is not necessary to either this democracy in particular or to democracies in general.
> Democratic institutions are a much more accurate way of reflecting the will of the people
You're right but that's not what we have in the US. We have a Constitutional Republic. Elected representatives write the laws. People are not voting directly on laws and issues (on a federal level). I'm not saying we should change it but for the parent comment to say that "The People decided this" is not an accurate statement.
> Study: Congress literally doesn’t care what you think
> Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies that ended up becoming law. In other words, they compared what the public wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all.
Another interpretation: when you sum a bunch of opinions you end up with a result that doesn’t look particularly like any of the inputs, and certainly not a large portion of them.
I think you're over-representing just how well opinion surveys can represent the actual will of the people.
To put this in a less politicized analogy, everyone will tell you they want to be rich, but how many people are willing to make sacrifices to become rich? It turns out many rich people today are rich because they didn't have to make very many sacrifices, while most everyone, including minimum wage employees, can become a millionaire. Mathematically it's not all that complex.
People will tell you what they want with some internalized model that isn't representative of the realistic trade-offs that would have to be made. So in effect what people say isn't based in the reality of what they actually want.
This is the wrong take. The system reflects the will of the people who the system deems important. The average person wants higher wages, shorter hours and cheaper cost of living w/r/t rent, food, fuel and health. Congress is reflecting none of those desires right now because they serves the needs of the oligarchic selectorate that has been funding unrestricted class warfare against regular people for the last 20 years.
> average person wants higher wages, shorter hours and cheaper cost of living w/r/t rent, food, fuel and health. Congress is reflecting none of those desires
The average voter does not uniformly express these preferences.
Duh? Like, by definition, an average doesn't reflect uniform expression. The people who don't want those things are a minority, but they are getting their way, because the system reflects the desires of the elites, not the desires of the average.
> people who don't want that are a minority, but they are getting their way
They’re the majority. Almost every voter puts pocketbook issues near the top of their list, but not so far up that they’re willing to be civically active about it unless it’s a crisis. Herego, we spend most of our non-crisis time on non-pocketbook issues.
No, they aren't the majority. The elites that the system actually serves have successfully ignited a culture war that splits the average people on which issues are driving the economic problems. The overwhelming majority of Americans want higher wages and cheaper cost of living, they just can't agree on how to get there (by design).
Not conspiracy - culture wars. Conspiracy is a part of that, but racial equality, immigration and abortion have all been wielded to great effect. It's certainly easier to create disruption than consensus, but the money is clearly backing disruption.
> racial equality, immigration and abortion have all been wielded to great effect
There is plenty of evidence happiness is, in part, relative. I’m not convinced there aren’t voters who would rather be a little poorer than better off but not as much as that other group.
> easier to create disruption than consensus, but the money is clearly backing disruption
I’m moderately wealthy. Split time between New York and Wyoming. It’s certainly wild that a bunch of voters in rural Pennsylvania feel strongly about lowering my taxes so long as it pisses off some liberals. If I had more resources and were more self centred, I could see myself encouraging that.
Almost every voter puts pocketbook issues near the top of their list, but not so far up that they’re willing to be civically active about it unless it’s a crisis.
We're not in a crisis now, but people voted in the last national election as if we were, because Fox News told them that we were.
This is my problem with the “elites in control” hypothesis. It seems to rely on voters’ power existing, but being circumvented because said voters are too stupid to handle it.
> This is my problem with the “elites in control” hypothesis. It seems to rely on voters’ power existing, but being circumvented because said voters are too stupid to handle it.
You are correct (except that it need only be a subset of voters).
Now that you've done a good job of elaborating on the hypothesis, what exactly is your problem with it?
It doesn't work. Its testable predictions preclude a good amount of extant politics, including practically all populism. Elites the world over are losing in democracies because they presupposed, from afar, that they knew what their constituents wanted. Voters' interests are complex, and they can't be so easily bought.
> Its testable predictions preclude a good amount of extant politics, including practically all populism.
How so?
> Elites the world over are losing in democracies because they presupposed, from afar, that they knew what their constituents wanted
Elites the world over are winning in democracies (take the US for example), which could feed into the hypothesis. Indeed, nonzero voters of these elites were easily bought.
> Here’s another possible interpretation: our information environment makes people extremely vulnerable to actual bullshit in massive volume
That is also true. People get angry and then misdirect it. But the anger is real, and it filters up through the political system when the valves aren't clogged. They aren't, not anywhere in the West. Voters across the West have essentially begun a wholesale replacement of their stable of elites. That is not what happens in an oligarchic system.
> That is not what happens in an oligarchic system.
The person USAns just voted in is literally an oligarch, as is his co-president, and he has indicated that he will populate his cabinet and advisory board with still more oligarchs. His "inauguration" slush fund has already received hundreds of millions of dollars from other oligarchs to secure their place in the new oligarchy*
> person USAns just voted in is literally an oligarch, as is his co-president, and he has indicated that he will populate his cabinet with still more oligarchs
America is tending towards an oligarchic system. (This is a history of weak democracies, historically, and a reason we were founded as a republic and not pure democracy.) That doesn't prove it currently is one. Trump's election is largely about replacing the technocratic and cultural elite with a commercial one.
> America is tending towards an oligarchic system. (This is a history of weak democracies, historically, and a reason we were founded as a republic and not pure democracy.) That doesn't prove it currently is one
Maybe that doesn't. But this study does:
> Princeton University study: Public opinion has “near-zero” impact on U.S. law.
> One thing that does have an influence? Money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a “statistically non-significant impact,” economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence
The study is from 2004. I'd say things have gotten a lot more "oligarchic" in the last 20 years, and seems like it might get even worse in the next few years
Honestly I don't think there's a rivalry among equals in play. I think the previous "elites" slacked off on the job. What's happening now looks less like a transfer of power than a vacuum being filled.
Regardless, it is the height of absurdity to argue that the "elites" aren't in charge now. A New York billionaire teamed up with the world's wealthiest man and the country's most influential cable news network to buy the Presidency, and the rest are now lining up to pay tribute.
The other "elites," to the extent there are any, are short on ambition, short on cash, and short on media reach.
> the previous "elites" slacked off on the job. What's happening now looks less like a transfer of power than a vacuum being filled
True. But this is how all depositions go. When that process is blocked is when the process stops being peaceful.
> it is the height of absurdity to argue that the "elites" aren't in charge now
Some elites are always going to be in charge. That's almost tautology. The point is there is no the elites who were in charge and are now.
> other "elites," to the extent there are any, are short on ambition, short on cash, and short on media reach
And/or. Plenty have some of those but not all, or at too stupid to know how to wield it. Point remains: we have an amorphous elite with contrasting interests who are constantly fighting because power is fractured among them.
Some elites are always going to be in charge. That's almost tautology.
Sure, but pro-Trump voters will tell you that they were striking a blow against the "elites." Apparently rule by elites is OK, though, as long as they believe the elites in question are on their side. It's only those other elites that are the problem.
Which goes back to my earlier point: why spend money buying votes the old-fashioned way, when a personality cult can actually be profitable?
If members of Congress are not acting in the interests of their constituents, their constituents have the power to vote them out. The decision not to is what's known as "the consent of the governed". Perhaps that's not exactly the same as "the will of the people" but it's close enough for casual usage.
Some other member from one of the two parties, who will continue to make decisions mostly for their rich donors?
> Princeton University study: Public opinion has “near-zero” impact on U.S. law.
> One thing that does have an influence? Money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a “statistically non-significant impact,” economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence.
> Public opinion has “near-zero” impact on U.S. law
Re-run that within voting jurisdictions. What that study largely seems to reference is that local representation is, in part, a divide and conquer mechanism.
I wonder if you consider the national debt? In a sense, the national debt continues to rise because of faith in the USA, which is similar to say "faith that debts will be repaid."
It won't be repaid by me, nor anybody in my generation (Millenial). So the world is kinda collectively assuming subsequent generations will repay. To your point, it's neither contrary-to nor aligned-with the will of the people, but seems like a massive point that people would say "i'm not responsible for"
Here are a few examples of times congress passed laws/acts which went against the will of the people:
The Fugitive Slave Act (1850)
The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798)
The Prohibition Act (1919)
The Vietnam War Draft (1960s)
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (2008)
OK, the only modern example on your list is TARP. I think the strength of your examples does not justify the strength of your statement.
Actually, I just read your update, you've changed from making a bold (and, in my view, wrong) statement about how government is not responsive to the will of the people, to a fairly boring technical point about how a representative democracy works. I have no idea if you're just doing a motte and bailey or if you were never trying to make a bold claim in the first place...
I'll just leave my piece here, in any case: I believe that the US system of government actually works really well, and in general we tend to get laws and regulations that are based on the broad consensus of a very diverse electorate. This is a good thing. In my opinion, when most people complain about how the government doesn't work for the people, what they actually don't like is that a lot of the country disagrees with them, and that disagreement is reflected in our government.
But, maybe I'm wrong and there's some other system we can come up with that will keep a vast and diverse nation hanging together prosperously for another 250 years. Shrug.
Gun Control Legislation (e.g., Background Checks, 2013)
After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, polls showed overwhelming public support (over 80%) for universal background checks. Congress failed to pass significant gun control measures despite this broad consensus.
Net Neutrality Repeal (2017)
Public opinion polls showed strong bipartisan support for net neutrality regulations. Despite this, Congress and the FCC rolled back these protections, prioritizing telecom industry interests.
Affordable Care Act (ACA) Repeal Attempts (2017)
Repeated attempts by Congress to repeal the ACA (Obamacare) were made despite consistent public support for key provisions like protections for pre-existing conditions.
Stock Trading by Members of Congress
Polls show overwhelming public support (around 70-75%) for banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks due to conflict-of-interest concerns. Yet, no significant legislation has passed to address this issue.
Gun control - fair point, this is one where I think an ambitious legislator could really make a name for themselves by pushing for it. I suspect that there would be more pushback from the electorate than is indicated in the polling, but who knows. This is your best point, I'll be really interested to see how public opinion actually breaks if concrete legislation is introduced.
Net Neutrality - maybe? My read on it is that it's just too wonky of any issue for most people to actually care that much about, and polling can't really tell us much about how the electorate would lean if they actually studied it - phrasing of the survey question can probably skew things strongly one way or the other. But, maybe that's just a cop-out.
ACA - doesn't this strengthen my argument? It's popular enough that even when the Republicans had a trifecta they still couldn't repeal it, despite running on "repeal and replace"... Maybe if they had actually had a replacement ready to go, they actually would have succeeded... but they couldn't reach consensus on a replacement, so it didn't happen.
Stock trading by members of Congress - the jury is still out on this one... when did this push start, during Biden's term? If (1) public opinion stays strongly in favor of it during Trump's current term but (2) we still don't see any legislation during the next presidential term... then I would call this a mark in your favor, but not until then.
Overall, I'm still not buying your argument that our government is unresponsive to the will of the people. It's certainly not a perfect reflection of the electorate, but generally when we build consensus, we get things done... it's just that consensus is really hard to come by these days.
Have a good one my friend, thank you for engaging, I think this stuff is really important. :)
On the draft, that wasn't a new law. Selective Service was probably a 1940s law. A majority didn't think the war was a bad idea until 1968 and a majority supported Nixon pretty much to the end regardless of the reimagining that hippies were ever a majority.
EDIT: Getting a lot of hate on this comment so allow me to clarify what I meant.
In the US we have a Constitutional Republic meaning elected representatives write the laws. People are not voting directly on laws and issues (on a federal level). The parent comment said that "The People decided this" but that's not an accurate statement. Congress decided this regardless of what people actually wanted. In fact, the public was largely divided on whether they wanted a Federal reserve during this time.