It is not the task of politicians to decide what science they like. Their task is to take into account scientific knowledge in their decision, whether they like that knowledge or not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/06/08/white-house-blocked-intelligence-aides-written-testimony-saying-human-caused-climate-change-could-be-possibly-catastrophic/ …
+1. However, arguably it's a politicians task to do whatever gets them (re-)elected. That this doesn't include acting in a rational manner is the real frustration for me. It seems like the vast majoy of the electorate is dumb as a rock pretty much everywhere.
![[ColeJ]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1043000626056065024/vDRPnUpt_normal.jpg)
-
-
No, it's not. It's their task to represent the electorate. Whether or not the electorate actually understands the rationale of their decisions is secondary. You'd think, of course, they'd make an effort to explain it, but, well.
-
But if the electorate doesn't care, isn't the politicians representing them accurately? I guess I'm saying representing the electorate and acting in the electorates interest isn't necessary the same thing. Politicians won't change unless acting irrational makes them unelectable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Democracy is a popularity contest. You can have your own opinion about what they should do but rational it ain't. Most governments now represent 'extreme wealth and corporate power' - Chomsky They have to popular to get elected but then act for their constituency, see Chomsky
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A 1980s Commodore 64 could make better decisions with 32K of RAM. Actually scratch that we might need a TCP/IP stack for feedback loop. I'll have to get back to ye. Have to redesign DemocracyOS.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.