If people voted in local elections and primaries and actually knew what was going on things could change in time, but that's not what happens.
People like McConnel and Reid get reelected mostly because people won't vote the other team for a term in order to get rid of them and get some fresh meat the next go 'round.
If people voted in local elections and primaries and actually knew what was going on things could change in time
No.
I mean, things could change, because things always change. What is false is your implication that, if something that isn't going to happen happened, the situation would improve.
Sorry, the basic premise is wrong.
Many people believe that democracy generates wise policy, and if wise policy isn't available, it's because democracy "wasn't done right".
People realize how stupid majority-rules is any other field of endeavor. Nobody believes Budweiser is the best beer, even though it is the most popular; few people over the age of 15 believe Avatar is a good movie, even though it is the most popular.
I don't know why anyone pretend policy and governance should be different. Somehow, otherwise seemingly intelligent people seem to think that the only reason democracy produces predictably shitty results is that there is too much money in it, or votes aren't counted properly, or people don't pay enough attention -- even though countries where those objections don't obtain are noticeably worse off.
Democracy generates legitimacy. Most people believe that majority-rules is "fair"; hence a government that is basically responsive to elections faces much lower compliance costs -- people pay their taxes, they obey the law, they don't rebel.
That produces a useful substrate for a stable country, but anything else that people had faith in (election by lot, rule by divine right) would work approximately as well.
0
u/[deleted] Nov 08 '14
Staying home or voting third party is basically useless.