Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tele man
Uh, I do NOT believe a single individual voter was ever asked about EPA-mandated safety stuff. The ONLY people who voted on what EPA decided to do was Congress members.
|
Sense those congress members are also voters .. and all the people at the EPA are also all voters ... many more than a single voter was asked.
- - - - -
That technicality aside .. We don't have a democracy .. we have a republic .. we vote for representatives .. (generally speaking) .. it is pretty rare that policy , laws, regulations , etc... are put forth to the general public for direct voting .. because we don't have a democracy... and that is intentional on the part of the majority.
But ... if the majority of voters were significantly against the EPA regulation .. it would be a major campaign issue .. And thus ... the next election cycle would have removed any member of congress in favor of it and only elected members who were against it ... thus it would have been changed ... that isn't what happened ... as far as the majority is concerned EPA regulations are extremely low campaign issue .. the tiny % that it is a high priority for (AFAIK) , tend to be more in favor of less pollution .. ie ... more EPA regulations.
Also .. fundamentally I don't see the elected officials as actually being able to 'force' the majority to do anything that the majority is significantly opposed to .. Like Alcohol Prohibition .. If what was passed was actually significantly counter the what the majority wanted ... just like prohibition ... it would not have been enforceable .. and would have eventually been repealed .. just like prohibition was... We haven't seen that (opposition from the majority) with EPA regulations.
- - - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
Not so much the people as it is the special interest groups. They make a lot of noise and wave a lot of money around. The people are for the most part apathetic so they basically don't count.
|
+1
From my PoV ... Apathy counts as a position on an issue.
And 'choosing' to let someone else choose for you .. ie by not participating yourself ... is also itself a choice / vote.
Also .. from my PoV .. voting with your $$$ counts more than election voting .. They both count ... but one is bigger than the other .. are AFAIK ... that election day vote steers less than 1/4 of the $$$ the other 3/4 is where people vote with their $$$ ... Burger King , Grocery Store , cell phone company, etc ... etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird
There are 100s of things the majority wants that are squashed by the government all the time. Then there are 100s of things small minorities want that are forced on everyone by the government. People being able to vote with their dollars to get what they want in the market is a nice idea, but it doesn't happen that way. Maybe with smart phones but not with highly government regulated things like cars. Good news is with net "neutrality" maybe we can get the government to decide what the majority wants there as well. That is if they every actually publish the rules they voted on without letting anybody read.
|
Off hand .. I can't think of any example of something that the majority actually seriously wants and pushes for as a high priority ... that the government has ever successfully been able to 'squash'... Please give me one of the 100s of examples you were thinking of ??? ... Off hand I think of examples of the exact opposite .. prohibition being an easy one.
The minority of people .. becomes the majority of those who participate ... when the actually majority .. make the choice to have someone else choose for them ( ie not participate themselves) .. even in cases like voting when they can , instead go and make a choice themselves ... thus the majority are still getting what they chose ... (letting someone else choose for them)... if they were seriously against what that minority did .. they are completely able to participate next time ... but .. most weigh their options .. and instead continue to choose to have others choose for them... which is still itself a choice.
I don't see cars being any significantly different .. no law forces consumers to spend $40k instead of $1k .. Air Conditioning , Radios , etc... etc... As far as I can see voting with our $$$ is exactly what happens ... and why we have over 90% of what we have.