> Ask yourself, what was the last time you read something in the news that contained information you could actually act on in a meaningful way?
The what in question would be the news item I had read. The meaningful action was the public protest I chose to join, or the campaign donations I decided to make, or the phone calls to my elected representatives. Elections aren't the only way citizens can (or should) interact with their government.
You don't do it, your government does, through law, regulation, and policy. You just need to vote for the ones who will implement those and protest those that refuse.
Yes, but that does not mean the public can actually do something about it (not saying we should not try, though). Political lobbies can be more powerful than citizens, it would not be the first time it happens.
> I want to finish this comment with a call to engage in democracy. Make your opinion heard, loudly, go to the voting polls, participate in your local council, actually engage in politics
in the Bay Area, they tend to vote for more and better roads (but tend not to get them)
No thanks. In my experience, participation inside the political machinery is a waste of time, about as useful as joining the KKK to influence its members to stop lynchings. I think non-violent direct action is a more effective strategy.
> Easy to pass any legislation that changes voting and threatens all the incumbents? Not without a HUGE push, which I don't see happening anytime soon but why not try?
Or leave for somewhere else more amenable to ones quality of life on the ground and/or wait for things to deteriorate sufficiently enough such that people want to change things. Or a host of other things people could do in any given environment besides voting.
Bring it into the political discourse. And vote.
reply