I argue that democracy would be better if politicians cared about what people want. Not the top-of-their-head soundbite wants, but the actual needs driving those individual desires.
Ironically enough I believe that the current democracy we live in is effectively quite close to the original democracy, as it manifested in the city-state of Athens and wider ancient Greece. Only 3% of the total population had a vote: namely those with family titles or enough wealth.[ß]
These days we'd call it plutocracy or oligarchy.
ß: It doesn't really matter what the general population does with their votes when less than 3% get to choose what options are on the ballot in the first place.
Ask yourself: who were responsible for putting him on the ballot in the first place? And why? Because from looking where I am (read: not in the US), the correct choice in 2016 elections would have been "neither". But that's not a choice available - choosing not to vote is entirely different from voting "none of the above".
The comment wasn't intended as "bait". I used to be in the camp that money was basically all that was necessary to drive an election. Trump's campaign proved me wrong. The establishment did everything they could to discredit him. He spent basically half the money as his competitor. He still won.
I think money is still a problem in politics, but I think the model that money is the driving contributor is too simple.
As an aside, “neither” is an option in the U.S. but too many people have been convinced a third party vote is equivalent to throwing their vote away and thus it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy
Well... Money is a necessary requirement, because it buys visibility in all forms of media. But if we calmly look at what went on, Trump did more than just blast himself out to everywhere he could. Yes, he's an unhinged demagogue, but he also played the media remarkably well. (Calling in to a newsroom and getting unsolicited airtime in the middle of an otherwise redundant programme?)
> As an aside, “neither” is an option in the U.S. but too many people have been convinced a third party vote is equivalent to throwing their vote away
You missed my point. The option I'm talking about is not "neither". It's "none of the above". You need a way to actively express that you, as a voter, have considered the available named options and rejected all of them. Not by wasting a protest vote or abstaining to vote in the first place.
I don't believe I'm saying this, but I honestly think an Australian-style mandatory voting regime would do well in the US. At least that would force the states' hands and make voter suppression a hell of a lot harder to attempt. Combine that with ballots that always have "none of the above" option, and you might start to see something shift.
What would you think happens to legitimacy if "all options were bad" gets a larger share of votes than your supposedly winning candidate?
I think what Trump did was run a far more efficient campaign in terms of what his money provided in the media. He was able to to leverage free publicity by aligning his personality with the incentives of the attention economy.
Thanks for clarifying on the "neither" issue. I would be an advocate of a "none of the above" vote option. In my mind, it does much as the same as if people voted third party. I wasn't equivocating a third party vote to a protest vote. At a certain point, when the percentage of third party votes reaches a certain tipping point those who feel like it's a wasted vote may be convinced it's a viable option. But I also think there are other (possibly more pragmatic) voting schemes like ranked voting that are being implemented at lower levels in the country.
I would be strongly against mandatory voting and I think it could make the system even worse. I think it's important to recognize that you also have the right not to vote just like you have the right not to own a firearm, have the right not to speak up even though you have the freedom of speech etc. A "right" is not equivalent to an "obligation". I think there's issues with uninformed votes as it is and this could be exacerbated by mandatory voting. Sometimes the appropriate choice is to refrain from voting rather than casting an uninformed vote.
> > to figure out which version of your word people like best.
> It sounds like you're arguing that democracy is better if the politicians don't know what the people want?
I have no particular objection to politicians knowing what people want. But that wasn't how I think the money is being spent.
Rather, the use I was pointing out is centered on figuring out what people want to hear.
So, less "what positions would the voters prefer we take" and more "How can we package the policies our donors prefer such that voters choose us over the opposition". Spin, in other words.
See Bloomberg, Hilary (outspent Trump 2:1). Many other examples of well-funded politicians failing.