6 ms·

People naturally have varying levels of skin in the game on various issues. They should not have varying levels of voting power. But that's essentially what pub

People naturally have varying levels of skin in the game on various issues. They should not have varying levels of voting power. But that's essentially what public comment process does. And your natural inclination is to assume that turnout at public comment maps to those people most impacted by an issue. But that's not at all the case! Turnout maps to those most activated by an issue, which is a function of how much free time they have (public comment is generally wealthier and older) and how fearful they are of change (public comment biases sharply towards "no"). I'm fond of asking people locally here how many of them have even considering turning out at public comment opportunities to support new apartment development. I've never met someone who has, even though people here are broadly supportive of housing. But go to a Plan or HPC meeting: there's a line of commenters out the door opposing the apartments. Public comment is antidemocratic.

wredcoll 5d ago
> Public comment is antidemocratic. This is a fascinating train of thought. I get the logic, but where does it stop? If the idea is that any situation where people are influencing the government/making decisions without absolutely everyone in the electorate being involved, is anti-democratic, at what point are people in the government allowed to make decisions without consulting everyone? We have representatives for a reason, and part of that reason involves making decisions without having a vote (even when that decision is made by someone several rungs down the chain from the person actually elected). I'm highly sympathetic to the idea that the actual effect of these types of "public comment" situations and hopefully anyone involved in one keeps in mind the inherent biases of who shows up, but I don't see how you can flat out deny the idea of asking people, you know, the voters, to come give opinions on decisions being made that are inbetween the actual elections.
- tptacek 5d ago
  We arrange to have everybody vote on a designated day. We publicize that day. We make a very big deal out of getting people to vote. We don't do it too often. People show up and make decisions. They should then be able to leave and assume those decisions will be put into action. But in local politics they often can't, because interest groups that lost the election will camp every meeting afterwards with canvassed public commenters jawboning officials to make different decisions.
  - int_19h 4d ago
    > People show up and make decisions. They should then be able to leave and assume those decisions will be put into action. But this isn't the case. In every representative democracy around the world, including ours, the bedrock principle is that elected politicians "vote their conscience", i.e. they are not bound by what they said they'll do if elected. So in practice you can't assume that what you voted for will be put into action. If anything, the track record on that is pretty poor.
    - tptacek 3d ago
      This again sounds like national politics and not local. They really are totally different. In local politics the electeds are your neighbors. They serve part time. All of them have full-time jobs (except sometimes the mayor). You don't communicate with them by making time with their staff --- none of the have staff. Instead you generally just text them or meet them for coffee. I've never met Tara Stamps, my county commissioner, but I could be face-to-face with her inside a couple days if I wanted. And that's Cook County, one of the largest densest counties in the country.
      - wredcoll 3d ago
        > I've never met Tara Stamps, my county commissioner, but I could be face-to-face with her inside a couple days if I wanted. And that's Cook County, one of the largest densest counties in the country. This was literally my point about "public comment". We vote for representatives. They then make decisions based on all sorts of things like ancient holy texts and whoever they spoke to most recently. How is this formal meeting to give opinions antidemocratic but you setting up a personal meeting to influence someone is just fine?

wredcoll 5d ago

> Public comment is antidemocratic. This is a fascinating train of thought. I get the logic, but where does it stop? If the idea is that any situation where people are influencing the government/making decisions without absolutely everyone in the electorate being involved, is anti-democratic, at what point are people in the government allowed to make decisions without consulting everyone? We have representatives for a reason, and part of that reason involves making decisions without having a vote (even when that decision is made by someone several rungs down the chain from the person actually elected). I'm highly sympathetic to the idea that the actual effect of these types of "public comment" situations and hopefully anyone involved in one keeps in mind the inherent biases of who shows up, but I don't see how you can flat out deny the idea of asking people, you know, the voters, to come give opinions on decisions being made that are inbetween the actual elections.

tptacek 5d ago
We arrange to have everybody vote on a designated day. We publicize that day. We make a very big deal out of getting people to vote. We don't do it too often. People show up and make decisions. They should then be able to leave and assume those decisions will be put into action. But in local politics they often can't, because interest groups that lost the election will camp every meeting afterwards with canvassed public commenters jawboning officials to make different decisions.
- int_19h 4d ago
  > People show up and make decisions. They should then be able to leave and assume those decisions will be put into action. But this isn't the case. In every representative democracy around the world, including ours, the bedrock principle is that elected politicians "vote their conscience", i.e. they are not bound by what they said they'll do if elected. So in practice you can't assume that what you voted for will be put into action. If anything, the track record on that is pretty poor.
  - tptacek 3d ago
    This again sounds like national politics and not local. They really are totally different. In local politics the electeds are your neighbors. They serve part time. All of them have full-time jobs (except sometimes the mayor). You don't communicate with them by making time with their staff --- none of the have staff. Instead you generally just text them or meet them for coffee. I've never met Tara Stamps, my county commissioner, but I could be face-to-face with her inside a couple days if I wanted. And that's Cook County, one of the largest densest counties in the country.
    - wredcoll 3d ago
      > I've never met Tara Stamps, my county commissioner, but I could be face-to-face with her inside a couple days if I wanted. And that's Cook County, one of the largest densest counties in the country. This was literally my point about "public comment". We vote for representatives. They then make decisions based on all sorts of things like ancient holy texts and whoever they spoke to most recently. How is this formal meeting to give opinions antidemocratic but you setting up a personal meeting to influence someone is just fine?