According to an oft referenced Princeton study, the will of the population has almost exactly zero impact on congressional voting: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

According to a couple of other studies, states choose policies their citizens want only 59% of the time and politicians, overall, vote against the will of the people they represent 35% of the time: https://promarket.org/study-politicians-vote-will-constituen...

Unless you're using large scale money and influence to interact directly with politicians, neither your will or your direction have any meaning.

That's just a statistical artifact caused by the fact that things generally get passed as soon as they get past 50% support in the legislature, which is about the same time they have around 50% support in the population, and then half the time it happens to be 51% in the legislature but 49% in the population or vice versa.

> The problem of secrecy in government is that the situation is not always clear.

We are always spoon fed the Eisenhower's remarks regarding the "Military Industrial Complex" but I am quite curious as to how many of you (American or not) have even heard about, much less read in full, president Truman's op-ed in the Washington post, dated Dec. 22, 1963.

https://archive.org/stream/LimitCIARoleToIntelligenceByHarry...

Quote:

We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.

end quote.

p.s. about that 12/22/1963. (See 11/22/1963)

[p.s.s. do read it in full.]

Coordination and direction are the means of power. Without these, one does not actually have power.

You’re being down voted but you’re spot on. It’s tough to have civil discussions when the subject matter is extremely sensitive. How do we verify the classification of certain programs is truly sensitive not simply politically motivated?

To your first point, I believe we are screwed as long as Citizens United stands (0). We the people will always be out-coordinated by the oligarchs and their bureaucrats.

Which leads to your second point. As long campaign spending of the super rich is protected as “free speech” (the result of Citizen’s United) we are stuck with politicians who can be bought and sold. Men and women with strong moral codes cannot be bought, and therefore will not win elections. Exceptions are few and far between.

0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Citizens United was a massive win for the people against the media companies. Without it the media companies get to decide everything people hear because nobody else is allowed to put forth anything like that level of resources toward political speech. That's why you always hear the media whinging about it -- it's the only way anybody else has any hope of challenging their narratives in front of more of an audience than an individual YouTube channel.

Obviously the poor have no money to buy ads with, but we're not talking about the poor here. Nobody seriously running for office is poor. This is a battle between people who are rich enough to buy ads on a TV network and people who are rich enough to buy the TV network, and Citizens United is a win for the "little guy" in that situation.

The big problem we have in elections isn't that someone can be heard too well, it's that some people can't be heard well enough. But the answer to that is public financing of elections, which doesn't require restricting private speech in any way.

I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion. I strongly believe in public financing of elections.

Also, I appreciate your alternate view on this case. I will definitely be revisiting the facts in the light of your comment to reconsider my position.