| ▲ | Grombobulous 4 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This argument assumes that Congress does what the electorate wants. In a system where money in politics is unlimited (US v. Citizens United), elections consist of a first past the post two-party system, the president is not elected by popular vote, investigative media has been gutted and consolidated into oligarchal ownership, and proportional representation doesn’t exist (see: Washington DC residents have no representation, senators per Californian versus senators per Wyoming resident, gerrymandered districts) I don’t think we can blame the electorate for Congress not doing things that the people want. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | wwweston 4 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Money distorts the system in some ways and I agree that’s a problem that could use systemic mitigation (farther back than Citizen’s United probably, Buckley vs Valeo is arguably the deeper roots). But ultimately, money doesn’t remove the fundamental electoral mechanisms (yet) or opportunity for volunteer direct lobbying. It primarily distorts to the degree that it can be used to buy the focus of the electorate and to the degree it can be used to buy other people’s lobbying time. People could spend their time managing their own political /public policy focus and volunteer lobbying instead of any other leisure activities. I’ve done it and I know others who do. Most Americans don’t, and that’s a revealed preference. Other leisure activities are more important. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||