Would we (voters) be better off if we got what we wanted?

[icehorse]

This is a spin-off of the “oligarchy” thread. To recap, in the US, voters typically don’t get what they want:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...ate-clinton-speech-this-is-what-i-experienced

The question is, would we voters be better off if we did get what we wanted?

Imagine that tax returns included a list of the 20 (or so), most expensive government programs. Now imagine that every tax payer could choose which programs’ budgets should be increased and which could be decreased. So that if, collectively, most of us wanted a bigger infrastructure budget, we’d get it. We could limit the rate of change so that budgets would rise and fall manage-ably over time. (Perhaps a given agency’s budget could change only +/- 5% per year.)

What would we have after 20 years? A much smaller military? A better infrastructure? Better healthcare? Better education?

Or would the voters create a monster?

 

[George-ananda]

I think the situation is half the country wants to move things to the right and half the country wants to move things to the left. So we have stalemate where neither side is ever happy. That is the nature of democracies.

 

[icehorse]

I think the situation is half the country wants to move things to the right and half the country wants to move things to the left. So we have stalemate where neither side is ever happy. That is the nature of democracies.

My understanding is that it's seldom really half and half. From early in the linked article:

The anecdotes are plentiful, from modest gun control proposals that saw 90% public support, to unemployment compensation, to infrastructure spending, to women's rights; where a plurality exists even across party lines, the median public interest seems to hold no sway in policy making.

Now it's understandable that folks might think it's half and half, the media often reinforces that notion. But in many cases, most of us agree, and our "leaders" ignore us.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

This is a spin-off of the “oligarchy” thread. To recap, in the US, voters typically don’t get what they want:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...ate-clinton-speech-this-is-what-i-experienced

The question is, would we voters be better off if we did get what we wanted?

Imagine that tax returns included a list of the 20 (or so), most expensive government programs. Now imagine that every tax payer could choose which programs’ budgets should be increased and which could be decreased. So that if, collectively, most of us wanted a bigger infrastructure budget, we’d get it. We could limit the rate of change so that budgets would rise and fall manage-ably over time. (Perhaps a given agency’s budget could change only +/- 5% per year.)

What would we have after 20 years? A much smaller military? A better infrastructure? Better healthcare? Better education?

Or would the voters create a monster?

I think the State of California, with its near-infinite supply of voter initiatives, provides a hint as to what you might end up with.

 

[Nietzsche]

This is a spin-off of the “oligarchy” thread. To recap, in the US, voters typically don’t get what they want:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...ate-clinton-speech-this-is-what-i-experienced

The question is, would we voters be better off if we did get what we wanted?

Imagine that tax returns included a list of the 20 (or so), most expensive government programs. Now imagine that every tax payer could choose which programs’ budgets should be increased and which could be decreased. So that if, collectively, most of us wanted a bigger infrastructure budget, we’d get it. We could limit the rate of change so that budgets would rise and fall manage-ably over time. (Perhaps a given agency’s budget could change only +/- 5% per year.)

What would we have after 20 years? A much smaller military? A better infrastructure? Better healthcare? Better education?

Or would the voters create a monster?

Is the answer to this really in question?

 

[icehorse]

I think the State of California, with its near-infinite supply of voter initiatives, provides a hint as to what you might end up with.

I can't tell where you're headed here?...

 

[icehorse]

Is the answer to this really in question?

Sometimes I'm heartened to hear what most people want, sometimes I'm gobsmacked. What do YOU think?

 

[Acim]

I think the situation is half the country wants to move things to the right and half the country wants to move things to the left. So we have stalemate where neither side is ever happy. That is the nature of democracies.

As someone who's been a proud non-voter, I would say it's more like 25% of the country wants to move things to the left, 25% to the right and 50% either isn't allowed to vote, is rather oblivious to voting, and/or (more likely) is moderate. So, in any national election, around 70% of the country is not likely voting for whoever is the current president, while around 25% (overall) are actively resisting everything the current POTUS is up to. Perhaps that number is more like 15% as I do think once a POTUS comes about, a whole bunch of partisan types are willing to put patriotism (country first) over partisanship (party first).

Admittedly, in the upcoming election, I think it could be more than 50% of overall population that votes, but would probably need Dems for that to occur. IOW, I think Pubs voters will be motivated to vote (though not necessarily all voting for the Pub (Trump). In 2012, I think not all Pub voters voted (at all, much less for the Pub candidate).

 

[Nietzsche]

Sometimes I'm heartened to hear what most people want, sometimes I'm gobsmacked. What do YOU think?

Look at the people who tend to be voted in. Now imagine those same voters without the buffer of voting for a person or party. I can't see how this could end in any way but horribly.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I can't tell where you're headed here?...

Allowing voters to decide what and how revenue will be raised and/or spent can result in difficulties for government. Proposition 13, for example, heavily constrains how government in California raises operating funds in an arguably nonsensical manner, while another voter initiative later required the government--during an ongoing budget crisis--to spend several billion on some technology initiative (can't remember if it was high- or bio-tech, something like that). On some issues, where the population is highly divided over the appropriate level of spending, NO ONE will be happy with the average between the two, and especially in things like national defense and infrastructure that have long lifetimes and long planning horizons, the public may not really recognize the "correct" spending level.

Just thinking of some of the practical difficulties that might ensue. personally, while I like the idea of more public involvement in government decisions, it's not really a solution by itself, just a source of different problems for governance.

 

[jeager106]

Is the answer to this really in question?

NO it isn't for me.

 

[icehorse]

Look at the people who tend to be voted in. Now imagine those same voters without the buffer of voting for a person or party. I can't see how this could end in any way but horribly.

Let's look at a case or two:

- On military spending: my guess is that the hawks and the doves would more or less balance each other out, so we wouldn't see much change in the military budget. (Although I'd hope we'd see more doves over time.)

- On infrastructure: my guess is that we'd see more people wanting better roads and bridges, and so the infrastructure budget would slowly increase.

Remember, we're not talking about people making up whatever program they want.

The other aspect of this that's interesting is that people would better be able to understand where their tax dollars are really going.