> i get it, liberal democracy is all about pretending to care about people, but why not actually do some effort and listen? in general, politicians are indeed more attuned to voters in modern times, but obviously not ideally or perfectly so. there is also something to be said for leaders who stand for more important principles in some cases, and not simply following polls on every single issue. for example slavery in the 1800s was not really a question to be decided by popular vote. the issue was much deeper than that, involving questions of constitutionality and value judgements rather than popular opinion alone. this is also why pure democracy cannot work or stand the test of time for any polity larger than a city-state.   > rank choice voting see arrow's impossibility theorem. > open primaries while this might seem like a good thing, in practice it means that many people who don't want any candidate to win the general election could knowingly subvert the primary process. while keeping them closed isn't a perfect solution and there may not be one, it at least helps to prevent this effect. i say this as someone who is an independent. > the system makes for a gerontocracy. not formally, but you could argue that it appears that way right now. certainly some kind of term limits on congress would help a great deal, since incumbency and just sitting still shouldn't be a winning strategy. but even so, this doesn't concern most people as much as the real issues killing meritocracy and promoting dei policies and letting convicts go free, and declining to even prosecute criminals at all when it comes to soros prosecutors, that are doing all of the real damage. from these matters, the idea of a gerontocracy is just a distraction. hopefully the people will finally be listened to that dei and all related initiatives and narratives have to be ended for good, and all of the offices and salaries that are wasted on counterproductive and divisive dei, and anything even remotely related to the concept of dei, have to now be liquidated and returned to the people. that dei stuff should be considered unlawful, not to mention being massive waste, fraud and abuse. and just like affirmative action, all that stuff violates the constitution as amended. there have also been studies and focus groups that support the fact that most people agree with this. > as is, politicians have no reason to cater to the median voter. that is not who matters for getting into office. this gets to an even bigger question having to do with citizens united as a decision, and the existence of special interest lobbies and corruption. this is a true third rail issue.
Unknown