US-Politics The Resistible Rise of Donald J. Trump

[TrackerNeil]

It's the NRA that threatens to score all gun votes and encourage it's small but very politically active membership to vote in the Repuiblican primaries against politicians that vote in favor of gun regulations the NRA opposes. It's not all their fault, but they have a lot of blood on their hands.

Yes.

It's easy to play the pseudo-intellectual* and say, "Oh, if you want your way, just get a majority on your side", but of course in our democracy the will of a dedicated and passionate minority often trumps the will of the majority.

*I'm not saying you are a pseudo-intellectual, Tywin.

[JonSnow4President]

It's the greatest failure of our democracy. Basically the minority opinion of a group of 4.5 million people has been forced on the entire nation.

~30k deaths from firearms in the US (including about 2/3 of that as suicides).  

~10k deaths from drunk driving (about the same as non-suicide firearm deaths)

~480,000 deaths from cigarette smoking per the CDC

Yup, guns are the greatest failure of democracy, if we're basing that solely on the number of people who die by something.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Yes.

It's easy to play the pseudo-intellectual* and say, "Oh, if you want your way, just get a majority on your side", but of course in our democracy the will of a dedicated and passionate minority often trumps the will of the majority.

*I'm not saying you are a pseudo-intellectual, Tywin.

"Will" is an interesting word to use. "Will" both denotes and connotes characteristics like determination, insistence, persistence and willfulness. It's a preference backed by some level of determination to see that preference through. 

When you say that the "will" of a "dedicated and passionate minority" often trumps the "will of the majority" what you are really saying is that both the minority and majority have preferences, but only one of them has the actual "will" to see those preferences through. 

It's true that sometimes minority preferences trump majority preferences in a democracy, but generally when that happens, it's because the minority has the will to see their side through, and the majority does not. The reality is that this minority CARES MORE about this issue than the supposed majority cares about the issue. And that's not a failure of "the system" - that's an ordering of preferences by the people inside of it. 

[Kalbear]

"Will" is an interesting word to use. "Will" both denotes and connotes characteristics like determination, insistence, persistence and willfulness. It's a preference backed by some level of determination to see that preference through. 

When you say that the "will" of a "dedicated and passionate minority" often trumps the "will of the majority" what you are really saying is that both the minority and majority have preferences, but only one of them has the actual "will" to see those preferences through. 

It's true that sometimes minority preferences trump majority preferences in a democracy, but generally when that happens, it's because the minority has the will to see their side through, and the majority does not. The reality is that this minority CARES MORE about this issue than the supposed majority cares about the issue. And that's not a failure of "the system" - that's an ordering of preferences by the people inside of it. 

Or in this case, the minority has a lot more money. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Or in this case, the minority has a lot more money. 

Of course. A fact that also explains why Jeb Bush is the clear Republican front runner. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I'd say the rising wealth inequity and the massive subsidy of the rich at the cost of the other 99.5% of Americans is a bigger failure. But hey, that gun thing sucks too. 

Maybe in real terms, but following Newtown 90% of Americans said they favor strengthening background checks, and nothing happened. Please show me an example of something where 90% of the American public agreed on something and it didn't happen.

Such dramatics. It's not a failure of democracy because you can't get enough people top vote in line with your legislative preferences. That's a failure of advocacy - not democracy. 

Again, you had 90% support for a general policy proposal and nothing happened because the NRA threatened to score the vote, even though a majority of NRA members actually supported strengthening background checks.

The NRA has roughly 4.5 million members. The eligible voting age population of the U.S. is over 235 million people. When the minority view of a group of 4.5 million people  wins out over the 90% view of 235 million people a failure of democracy has occured.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

~30k deaths from firearms in the US (including about 2/3 of that as suicides).  

~10k deaths from drunk driving (about the same as non-suicide firearm deaths)

~480,000 deaths from cigarette smoking per the CDC

Yup, guns are the greatest failure of democracy, if we're basing that solely on the number of people who die by something.

You clearly missed the point I was making.

[Kalbear]

Of course. A fact that also explains why Jeb Bush is the clear Republican front runner. 

Because lobbying and presidential races are 100% identical as well. Weren't you the one who was all against making spurious comparisons and failures of logic? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Or in this case, the minority has a lot more money. 

It's not the money that matters, it's the NRA's influence on the primary process, primarily the Republican primaries.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Again, you had 90% support for a general policy proposal and nothing happened because the NRA threatened to score the vote, even though a majority of NRA members actually supported strengthening background checks.

The NRA has roughly 4.5 million members. The eligible voting age population of the U.S. is over 235 million people. When the minority view of a group of 4.5 million people  wins out over the 90% view of 235 million people a failure of democracy has occured.

If 211 million people voted for stricter gun regulations and 4.5 million people voted against it, the the 4.5 million people won - that would be a failure of democracy.

If a poll says one thing and the that poll doesn't translate into policy action consistent with that poll - that's not a failure of democracy. That just means that democracy isn't run by polling and that polling isn't necessarily that good at exposing the revealed preferences of voters. 

[JonSnow4President]

You clearly missed the point I was making.

Apparently I did, because I don't see a clear failure of democracy going on in any facet, any more than any other special interest groups.  And from a numbers standpoint, it's not like this is the biggest bad thing causing death out there.  

[Kalbear]

It's not the money that matters, it's the NRA's influence on the primary process, primarily the Republican primaries.

And the reason they have that influence is a combination of funding for said candidates and the ability to mobilize their voters to vote against said candidates. And the money thing is a pretty big one on the grand scheme of things. 

If a poll says one thing and the that poll doesn't translate into policy action consistent with that poll - that's not a failure of democracy. That just means that democracy isn't run by polling and that polling isn't necessarily that good at exposing the revealed preferences of voters.

Since it's not actually voters making the calls but legislators on behalf of their constituents (in theory) this seems like an odd counterargument to make. When given the choice voters have often voted in stricter gun regulation and legislation; that legislation has largely been defeated by countersuits. What we're talking about here is not voters voting for things, but legislation failing despite having strong overall support, such as stricter background checking. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

And the reason they have that influence is a combination of funding for said candidates and the ability to mobilize their voters to vote against said candidates. And the money thing is a pretty big one on the grand scheme of things. 

It's the ability to mobilize that matters most, the money is secondary.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Since it's not actually voters making the calls but legislators on behalf of their constituents (in theory) this seems like an odd counterargument to make. When given the choice voters have often voted in stricter gun regulation and legislation; that legislation has largely been defeated by countersuits. What we're talking about here is not voters voting for things, but legislation failing despite having strong overall support, such as stricter background checking. 

I'm not sure exactly what your argument is. 

If it's that democratically passed laws are sometimes overturned by the Courts - okay. That's not a failure of democracy, that's a feature of Constitutional Republicanism. 

If it's that legislators don't 100% mirror the policy preferences of their constituents - that's not a failure of democracy, that's a feature of representative government. If legislators were expected to mirror exactly the preferences of their constituents (just the majority preferences, I assume), then there wouldn't be any point in having political parties or even running individual candidates. The reality is, you vote for a candidate, and you are voting for a bundle of policy preferences, some of which you may like, and some of which you may not, and each voter has to determine which issues are important enough to them to prioritize over others. Right now, the preference among voters for strongly anti-gun candidates isn't strong enough to overcome the stronger preference among other voters for strongly pro-gun candidates. 

[Kalbear]

My argument is that your argument was fairly disingenuous and wasn't responding to the original statements. If you want to argue that a representative democracy not representing the wishes of their constituents isn't a failure of said representative democracy please do so. Don't frame it as a failure of polling. 

I would say that nowadays there's a much less compelling reason to have representative democracy instead of true democracy given the ability to have voting and the ability to get information. 

Also, the notion that these are 'pro gun' candidates is pretty flawed. They're usually simply neutral, but they almost always side with the money or the status quo. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

My argument is that your argument was fairly disingenuous and wasn't responding to the original statements. If you want to argue that a representative democracy not representing the wishes of their constituents isn't a failure of said representative democracy please do so. Don't frame it as a failure of polling. 

I would say that nowadays there's a much less compelling reason to have representative democracy instead of true democracy given the ability to have voting and the ability to get information. 

Also, the notion that these are 'pro gun' candidates is pretty flawed. They're usually simply neutral, but they almost always side with the money or the status quo. 

What "original statements" was I not responding to? I have this annoying habit (one of many, apparently) of directly quoting everything I respond to. I find that this helps focus my responses to make sure they are on point. 

[James Arryn]

I'm not sure exactly what your argument is. 

If it's that democratically passed laws are sometimes overturned by the Courts - okay. That's not a failure of democracy, that's a feature of Constitutional Republicanism. 

If it's that legislators don't 100% mirror the policy preferences of their constituents - that's not a failure of democracy, that's a feature of representative government. If legislators were expected to mirror exactly the preferences of their constituents (just the majority preferences, I assume), then there wouldn't be any point in having political parties or even running individual candidates. The reality is, you vote for a candidate, and you are voting for a bundle of policy preferences, some of which you may like, and some of which you may not, and each voter has to determine which issues are important enough to them to prioritize over others. Right now, the preference among voters for strongly anti-gun candidates isn't strong enough to overcome the stronger preference among other voters for strongly pro-gun candidates. 

Gun sales lead to major profits which can be partially re-invested into political manipulation to further future yield. There is no interest group which derives a material profit from not selling guns, so while many more may want it that way, the interaction of money and government in this case makes for an uneven playing field. All funds that would go towards the non-NRA stance would be derived from the stance alone. Advocacy =/= being bought and sold, except from the most cynical perspective.

[Kalbear]

What "original statements" was I not responding to? I have this annoying habit (one of many, apparently) of directly quoting everything I respond to. I find that this helps focus my responses to make sure they are on point. 

And yet you still managed to miss the point. The original statement was that we did not pass the legislation for background checks. You responded to this by a note that the polling was wrong, which doesn't really have anything to do with anything when you're talking about congress. Keep doubling down though. It continues to be good theater while not actually saying anything of substance. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Gun sales lead to major profits which can be partially re-invested into political manipulation to further future yield. There is no interest group which derives a material profit from not selling guns, so while many more may want it that way, the interaction of money and government in this case makes for an uneven playing field. All funds that would go towards the non-NRA stance would be derived from the stance alone. Advocacy =/= being bought and sold, except from the most cynical perspective.

You throw out terms like "political manipulation" as if it has some kind of obvious consensus-definition that we can agree on. What exactly are you talking about? 

What evidence do you have that the "interaction of money and government" makes for an "uneven playing field"? What do you even mean by "uneven playing field" ? At the end of the day, voters elect candidates. If voters want candidates who are stronger on gun control issues, they can elect them into office. I've seen probably millions of dollars worth of NRA-sponsored pro-gun advertisement, but I'm not pro gun, and I'm not voting for pro-gun candidates. 

[Kalbear]

It's the greatest failure of our democracy. Basically the minority opinion of a group of 4.5 million people has been forced on the entire nation.

Here's the specific quote you were responding to, Nestor. You then conflate this with a failure of polling later on.Which again - not remotely the actual thing being discussed. I do expect you'll respond to this by telling us either how it wasn't clear what Tywin was talking about and you know better, or how you were correct but not talking about the point at hand.