You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
what if there are no "candidates people actually want", and the current system is, aside for obscure systemic issues (e.g. rural internet) and voters deciding based on shits and giggles (e.g. pressley), practically optimal? haven't heard anyone making this case, seems odd
ppl seem to assume that The People have one set of preferences and The Political Class has another. what if the voting population has a very wide range of things it cares about and (in aggregate or even individually) incoherent preferences?
what if there is no realistic way for politicians to get better approval ratings other than by manipulating the distribution of care about issues? (by, for example, riling people up about the perfidy of a scapegoat group)
the implicit model a lot of ppl seem to have is that, say, 75% of voters care a lot about Regulating the Banks, and 25% care a lot about Not Doing That. but they make the elections, so approval rates are 25% and could be 75%.
but what if 30% of ppl care about Regulating The Banks but 15% of them also care about abortion and 10% also care about Values and 30% want Lower Taxes and 20% vote for whoever has the cooler name and hate all politicians and and and
This is, as I understand it, basically the @AlexGodofsky position.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
![[tavʁaj] Ganbold](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1020711668677074944/igBOpyYD_400x400.jpg){kind=avatar}
![[tavʁaj] Ganbold](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1020711668677074944/igBOpyYD.jpg)
