> the will of the people only influences change when it coincidentally is aligned with special interest will

I'm not sure what this means: If many people support something, is that a 'special interest'? Or won't there inevitably be a special interest supporting the same issue?

Also, do you have some research that supports this claim? I have seen research that lobbying's greatest power is to stop things from changing - i.e., to maintain the status quo.

There is one paper worth reading, I was able to retrieve it from sci-hub:

http://sci-hub.bz/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135308

tl;dr The most effective lobbying groups are typically supported is heads of large organizations acting independently of the rest of the organization or actual people. Estimating effectiveness has challenges in an empirical study but here are our attempts anyway.

There is another paper that shows the outcomes of public policy issues that stirred public interest. I want to find that one.

Is it at all possible that the will of the people could influence change more often if more people were involved?

Possible. I'd argue the reverse is more likely, given that people relatively uninterested in voting are disproportionately less likely to be partial towards a particular candidate or cause or otherwise interested in changing the status quo.

Reasons for not voting vary. Uninterested voters are common, but other factors (didn't like the candidates, forgot to vote, too busy, transportation problems, inconvenient polling place) show up too.

The Census has good data on this: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/p20/577/... [XLS]

No, a representative sample votes.

A shift in the demographics of voters influences change.

A representative sample doesn't vote, that's the problem. The people who show up tend to be white middle-aged homeowners. Youth voter turnout, for instance, is very low compared to the eligible population [1]

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...

Do you know of any evidence that a representative sample votes?

Even if that's true, I think 100% voting is a worthwhile goal, because it removes any doubt. If voting is already perfectly representative, then nobody should have a problem with this initiative, because it would change nothing.

for evidence we could start here: http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics

are we aligned on the understanding that representative sample means a reflection of the random population? As in not a representative proportion of all subsets, but just what you might see in a random place in the country.

I mentioned to you or in another subthread that a shift in the voter demographics can effect change.

It is a waste of energy. Yes it is quaint that people actually fought for this right, now logically, you should realize this is unnecessary duplication of efforts, and you have suggested that there should be no problem increasing that unnecessary duplication of effort.

Some people, and their entities, are more influential than others and will always be. The popular vote has limited utility.

This observation has nothing to do with alternative forms of governance. This observation is simply that here and now, there are better rules you can play by than even caring about the popular vote one bit.

Ok, I think we understand each other. If you know of some study that shows the current voting population is representative of the total population, I would be interested in seeing it.

The successes of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would seem to contradict your thesis.

It only changes WHO is elected, not what's going to happen. Which thus far only is fantasy and speculation. I remember the last time that happened - before Obama. How much "change" did we see? And please - it does not matter if one thinks "it's all the Republicans' fault", assigning blame does not change what the outcome was (is).

It doesn't contradict the thesis.

I suppose the lizard people do in fact support Sanders and Trump.