To be fair, $65/month for gigabit fiber is pretty standard.

It’s what we got here in Southern Illinois, although I don’t use it.

“not everyone has the time or energy to make good decisions”

That’s what I pointed out when I said people can only vote for the bills they care about and ignore the ones they don’t.

Brexit is an example of the will of the people going against their own interests, but what about when Congress goes against the will of the people with a detrimental effect?

Is direct voting perfect? No. You will always be able to find issues with anything suggested. Is it better than a representative democracy? Probably, but not enough nations have implemented it so we don’t have much data to go on.

Buying people’s votes could be even easier, especially for those who don’t care.

This is when you start going into fantasy world territory. There’s no way in hell it’s cheaper or easier to buy individual votes than lobbying and campaign contributions. First of all, it’s illegal. How would you set something like that up so it’s easy for people who ‘don’t care’ while keeping it away from law enforcement? You can’t. All that may happen is small-scale vote buying, which already can occur.

Anyways. Thanks for being a fine example for why we don’t make progress. Better the devil we know, right?

making choices on my behalf

That’s the thing. They’re not making choices on your behalf.

Hence the “see how often Congress ignores the will of the people.”

It doesn’t have to exactly match, but there should be enough overlap that you don’t feel as though you’re just supporting the ‘lesser oppressor.’

Unfortunately, most people like being oppressed or controlled so we don’t get any politicians that fight back against it.

People will actively lower their standards so they’re not disappointed when they don’t get what they want.

Direct voting has some definite drawbacks mostly involved with the amount of time it takes to fully read and digest each instance of bill making.

So? People can vote for the bills they want, and ignore the ones they don’t. They’ll still have more power than they do now.

Funny. You use “allowing other people to make decisions for you” as though it’s a drawback to direct voting when that’s all a representative democracy is.

I totally agree.

Yes, the filibuster only serves to allow Republicans (the minority) to prevent the will of the majority.

If there is ever an issue that the Democrats feel requires filibustering, then the American public is more than likely to just ignore it if it passes. This is because of how wildly unpopular it likely is, and how obvious it would be that loons in red states are trying to control sane people from blue ones.

Filibuster is the dumbest thing.

Any republican policy that’s worth filibustering would just be ignored by the general public, anyways.

It seems like it solely benefits minority rule to stop the majority from doing what it wants.

Sounds like terrorism.

Not really.

Either your vote matters, or it doesn’t. You can’t have it both ways.

No. It’s not even a legitimate democracy when there are any representatives. Just look at how often Congress goes against the will of the majority.

A legitimate democracy would be direct voting, but most people who support democracy don’t support it.

No it’s not.

The world isn’t black and white.

is somehow taking a stand against shit sandwiches.

If enough people get angry and vote third party, it can change the outcome of an election.

This incentivizes both parties to minimize the amount of people they anger in a close race.

Where did they say who they were voting for instead?

Well, third-parties do have a place. If it’s a close election and you piss people off, you could lose due to their protest votes.

They might vote for neither.

That’s fair.

Democrats have been running the same candidate since the Clinton era.

We could use someone new.

Gonna block you too.

Removed by mod