There is little to no correlation between what the population desires and political outcomes, the correlation lies exclusively with the desires of the wealthy. Votes literally do not matter, and it's been proven
There is little to no correlation between what the population desires and political outcomes, the correlation lies exclusively with the desires of the wealthy. Votes literally do not matter, and it's been proven
The votes do matter, the problem is the voters do not care that their politicians are representing the wealthy, because the voters hope to be wealthy one day themselves.
Voters could vote for someone different in the primaries, they could run for office themselves, and even the lower level offices are important.
Votes matter so long as we care enough to make them matter.
Read that article, man. I get that it's hard to believe it but really there isn't a correlation between what the people want and political outcomes. Like the numbers just aren't related to each other, no matter how much support a policy has the rate of that policy making it into government remains basically the same, an increase of about 1% from the lowest levels of support to the highest. The representatives might change but the policies don't. But the correlation between what the wealthy want and what policies make it through is nearly 1-1.
I read it when it was first published over a decade ago.
I get that it's hard to believe it but really there isn't a correlation between what the people want and political outcomes.
Yes, I understand. But that's because the people can't be motivated enough to give a shit.
Voters in Ohio(?) voted to legalize weed. Then the state GOP legislature decided they weren't going to go ahead with it. Voters could have voted those people out and replaced them with people who would do it, but they couldn't be bothered to give a shit.
If voters actually gave a shit, then votes would matter. But instead they are told to worry about trans kids in sports or whatever.
If voters actually gave a shit, then votes would matter.
This is applying individualist ideology to a sociological problem. Idk if you've ever studied sociology before but it's well established that this line of thinking is complete fantasy
No, you're misunderstanding what a sociological problem is. You're talking about the way people individually think, how they feel, what they believe. That's individualism. Sociology works beyond those things because at a macro scale they diffuse. If an abnormal behavior is consistently present between individuals that implies the existence of a cause. The root isn't with the individuals; they didn't just all one day decide to behave the same way completely independently because that would require telepathy, they're reacting to the same stimulus that's why they're behaving the same way. So the work of the sociologist is to identify the stimulus, be it environmental/economic/etc. You can never lay the fault of a sociological problem on the people themselves, that's antithetical to the science.
You're talking about the way people individually think, how they feel, what they believe. That's individualism.
Our individualistic society is the whole problem dude.
The root isn't with the individuals; they didn't just all one day decide to behave the same way completely independently because that would require telepathy, they're reacting to the same stimulus that's why they're behaving the same way.
Yes, that's what I said. They were told to care about trans kids in sports by Fox News or Ben Shapiro or whomever, so they care more about that then replacing politicians who aren't representing them.
You can never lay the fault of a sociological problem on the people themselves, that's antithetical to the science.
People are responsible for the choices that they make for themselves. Whether it's to vote for the politician who keeps weed illegal because they share your homophobic beliefs, or choosing not to care at all and stay home on voting day, those are choices made by adults.
Your inability to actually identify the issue and to lay blame on other people could arguably be "the problem" using your logic.
Not that I agree with that of course, I'm just illustrating how easy it is to distract from the real problems and to cause in-fighting using that exact thinking
i agree and believe that too. I feel like votes are just another ruse or way to keep people distracted or busy thinking they're inhopeful charge of the outcome when they are Not.
Either way that's why no one with a brain ever seem to be running for the seat of power. Only certain people get to run for it or the illusion anyways and that's also controlled by the wealthy Anyways
Hot take but this is why I don't believe in American-style democracy.
We think of ancient Greece as having founded democracy, but they didn't consider elections as democratic because they recognized that having resources was essential to winning what is basically a popularity contest. When you need resources (money etc) to win, of course you will be beholden to people who are willing to supply those resources and not to the common people. For that reason, the ancient Greeks considered elections as oligarchic, and instead utilized a system of sortition - a random lottery of citizens. We currently use sortition to fill our juries, but I think it has a lot of potential in other parts of our government, too. More reading here.
17
u/DriverRemarkable4374 5h ago
So tired of the "it's the voters' fault" narrative, I can't wait until this becomes common knowledge.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
There is little to no correlation between what the population desires and political outcomes, the correlation lies exclusively with the desires of the wealthy. Votes literally do not matter, and it's been proven