Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Luckily you have democracy so her California voters can remove her. They apparently want to keep her so she should stay.



That's assuming voters are rational actors which is clearly not the case


I love how it's always the "other" voters that are irrational and voting against their best interests, never the observer.


Your point is fair, but keep in mind that if people considered their own behavior rational then they would probably change it...


I didn't intend for this to be a 100% thing, I think there are a decent number of people who are probably a lot more well informed than I am, but when the large majority of voters opinions are so easily manipulated as to effectively be for sale, then what the hell is the point? It's not much different than an oligarchy, but it's made a bit better because our overlords have a lot of hoops to jump through the keep the show running.


Nothing the parent said assumes voters are rational.

They pointed out that CA voters can remove her. True.

They pointed out she's still there, so the plausible majority of the people that cast votes must have wanted to elect her vs the opposition choice (as of the last election). True.


It does say that the voters wanted her there. I don't think they're engaged enough for that to be the case. Even if there were a grassroots attempt to do this, it would fail without substantial political and monetary support, because voters as a whole are not paying anywhere near enough attention to make informed decisions about these things in my opinion. When they even bother to show up.


Democracy couldn't exist if there was a mechanism to say certain votes are irrational and shouldn't be counted. It's not a perfect system but it's the best yet.


Democracy couldn't exist if we weren't allowed to tell people their votes are stupid. That's all GP is trying to do here.


I'm not saying there are votes that shouldn't be counted, but I do think the electorate is generally so disengaged and uninformed that it makes a farce out of anything. It's like a blind person attempting to drive a car. It's still better than non-democratic alternatives, but I think that has more to do with how all of the arcane pieces that make up the system happen to divvy up power enough to prevent it from becoming too centralized, and there's sort of a looming threat that the people could turn against you. It isn't because the core concept of the people actually controlling their own government holds much weight, at least not in how most people seem to conceptualize it.

Really I'd like for this not to be the case, but at the moment it seems like that isn't likely to happen anytime before I'm dead.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: