There’s certainly an argument to be made for direct democracy. Considering my own political beliefs at the moment include something very much like it, I’m definitely not going to argue against it.
I just feel like if we flipped the switch tonight, we’d be in the same position tomorrow that we are in today because everyone’s so indoctrinated into the ideas of the “two party” system we have right now. For instance, I thought we all hated the TSA, etc. and figured aloud (aka on bbs) if it’s so unpopular, why don’t we get rid of it.
Someone kindly pointed me to a heap of surveys showing that most Americans like the TSA even if it occasionally pisses them off by targeting white straight cisgender people instead of everyone else, who should so clearly be targeted by them instead.
It’s not simply that we’re voting for lizards (Doug Adams reference) … we believe in them too.
I do not however, trust surveys. Not any of them, not ever. Spent too much of my time working survey data. At their best? Wonky.
And few are at their best. It’s much, much too easy to skew the sample selection, and/or the questions, and/or the results, and/or the reporting of those results.
It’s statistics. And the only thing that generates more lies than statistics is survey statistics. No exceptions.
Now, a vote on allowing the TSA to exist? That would be excellent! People could still jump up and down about how important it was to vote or not, and why (or not) . They could still buy ad time, march n the streets, raise money - whatever they liked. Because, free speech & free assembly. But in the end, we’d have a decision that, even if it didn’t make any sense to some of us, would be a legitimately-decided decision.
One issue, up or down - not one-issue-as-propagandized-by-some-guy-wanting-the-gig-and-those-financing-him.
Soooo much cleaner. Obviously, nothing is ever foolproof, because fools get to vote. And run. But consensus is gained, and gigs vs. issues neatly partitioned.
