>If the actions of the NSA were seen by American citizens as such a major concern that they would not vote for a candidate who supported it, then we'd see major votes against one of them. If all the candidates were to represent interests opposite to those of their voters, then we'd see no votes for any.
You've simplified this way too much, as if each voter only has one issue that they care about. Political strategists are experts at game theory. They build political platforms based on how to get the most people off their couches per dollar. It is a multi-dimensional problem.
>The fact that we keep seeing these votes is simply a proof of the fact that most people don't really care about it.
It is proof of no such thing. Most people are happy to leave well enough alone when they don't see a problem. NSA surveillance has never been a serious issue in a national campaign. Until recently, anyone who expressed too much interest in domestic surveillance of citizens was a tinfoil hat wearing crackpot.
> The handful of us who hang out on HackerNews aren't representative of the general populace.
So? The populace is a composite of many factions. Some people even have mixed political philosophies.
> Ask the audience of Toddlers and Tiaras, who are probably an order of magnitude more than we are, what they think about it, and 90% of them would probably tell you something similar to "NSA? Is that like, UUUUUUUM, some football league or something?"
The media is the reason for this. I wish I had some good idea that wasn't completely at odds with democratic principles.
>> People have been boycotting elections for years. That only makes it easier for the radical fringes to their their crap on the agenda and for politicians to focus on those low-hanging fruits.
>People have been boycotting elections for years -- they're only valuable when they bring the turnout below the threshold of validity, which has happened in some countries.
Well, that isn't going to happen, ever, or at least until the "Toddlers and Tiaras" crowd has some political motivation other than ["ZOMG Abortion", "ZOMG Teh Gays", "ZOMG Illegal Mexicans in our jerbs"]
>If US citizens feel their political or electoral system is biased, whining about it won't help -- and it looks particularly hypocritical after readily applauding the Arab spring.
Whining about politics is as great an American tradition as Apple Pie.
I don't quite follow. It's not like there is some naturally occurring flow of newspapers, radio and television broadcasts that discuss with the correct, important issues in an intelligent way, and some sort of cabal (the media) has come in and suppressed all that so they could force toddlers and tiaras down their throats.
There are plenty of news outlets that are spending their money to broadcast the details of the NSA scandal as accurately as possible, and if people happen to find those outlets on their TVs, they change the channel to toddlers and tiaras as quickly as possible. Which goes back to the original (I think correct) point that most people don't find this particular issue as dire as many people think they should.
I knew that comment would open a can of worms. One might also argue that the shabby quality of education has a bit to do with it as well.
>I don't quite follow. It's not like there is some naturally occurring flow of newspapers, radio and television broadcasts that discuss with the correct, important issues in an intelligent way,
The ownership of media in the US is not as diverse as you might think. The content is also not (at least IMO) as diverse as it would be absent improper influence.
>and some sort of cabal (the media) has come in and suppressed all that
Would you believe Carl Bernstein if he told you that the CIA had operatives at all levels of major news media outlets within the US, and a history of manipulating the news? http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
If not him, have a look at the Church Committee reports on intelligence activities along the same theme.
Neither is proof that the activities were continued after being caught red-handed, but, it is enough that I would consider naive the notion that the gov't/intel community had completely ceased such activities, as opposed to just being more careful. As far as I am concerned, given the past (the part that is public record) the possibility that the gov't/intel community aren't still successfully manipulating domestic media coverage can't be dismissed without a credible investigation, or credible oversight, or something to that effect. To put it another way, public exposure of NSA activities is being treated by NSA as a threat to their continued operations; and they will use the tools in their arsenal to fight that threat.
> so they could force toddlers and tiaras down their throats.
If you have a monopoly/oligopoly/cartel in a market, you can feed your customers pretty much anything, and still make a living.
> You've simplified this way too much, as if each voter only has one issue that they care about. Political strategists are experts at game theory. They build political platforms based on how to get the most people off their couches per dollar. It is a multi-dimensional problem.
I don't think I have. Blatant breaches of something that voters perceive to be a fundamental right of theirs should be a dealbreaker; I am fairly sure that a candidate whose otherwise great agenda would include items like stoping state financing of any educational institution, explicitly forbidding any kind of health care for patients over fifty (you can pick any criteria here), explicitly introducing media censorship or punishing adherence to Catholicism with jail wouldn't get too many votes from mentally-sane voters.
It sounds fairly logical to assume that most American citizens are ignorant enough about their dignity, the meaning of being human or about who they are voting for that they don't perceive acts of support for such breaches of their rights to be a dealbreaker.
I'm not saying this is good or bad -- Americans seem to be happy enough not to do much about it, so if it floats their boat, it's awesome -- I'm just arguing that it is representative for them.
>The media is the reason for this. I wish I had some good idea that wasn't completely at odds with democratic principles.
Perhaps one of the problems with America today is that the right to broadcast whatever nonsense across the airwaves is considered a democratic principle.
You've simplified this way too much, as if each voter only has one issue that they care about. Political strategists are experts at game theory. They build political platforms based on how to get the most people off their couches per dollar. It is a multi-dimensional problem.
>The fact that we keep seeing these votes is simply a proof of the fact that most people don't really care about it.
It is proof of no such thing. Most people are happy to leave well enough alone when they don't see a problem. NSA surveillance has never been a serious issue in a national campaign. Until recently, anyone who expressed too much interest in domestic surveillance of citizens was a tinfoil hat wearing crackpot.
> The handful of us who hang out on HackerNews aren't representative of the general populace.
So? The populace is a composite of many factions. Some people even have mixed political philosophies.
> Ask the audience of Toddlers and Tiaras, who are probably an order of magnitude more than we are, what they think about it, and 90% of them would probably tell you something similar to "NSA? Is that like, UUUUUUUM, some football league or something?"
The media is the reason for this. I wish I had some good idea that wasn't completely at odds with democratic principles.
>> People have been boycotting elections for years. That only makes it easier for the radical fringes to their their crap on the agenda and for politicians to focus on those low-hanging fruits. >People have been boycotting elections for years -- they're only valuable when they bring the turnout below the threshold of validity, which has happened in some countries.
Well, that isn't going to happen, ever, or at least until the "Toddlers and Tiaras" crowd has some political motivation other than ["ZOMG Abortion", "ZOMG Teh Gays", "ZOMG Illegal Mexicans in our jerbs"]
>If US citizens feel their political or electoral system is biased, whining about it won't help -- and it looks particularly hypocritical after readily applauding the Arab spring.
Whining about politics is as great an American tradition as Apple Pie.