Re:Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional
by tshaddox on Friday August 27, 2021 @07:32PM
(#28334147)
> Just because people vote for it, it doesn’t mean it is what people want.
This is really key, and should be a bigger topic of discussion in mainstream political philosophy. Governments that purport to be democracies ought to be responsible for aligning policies and outcomes with the preferences of the electorate. It's far too common for people to dismiss literally any problem in an ostensibly democratic jurisdiction as "well that's what the people voted for," as if the only end goal of a government is to pass some bare minimum threshold of being considered a "democracy" and the rest of the responsibility is on the electorate.
Re:Why San Francisco’s city government is so dysfunctional
by pclmulqdq on Saturday August 28, 2021 @08:32AM
(#28337530)
There is accountability at the ballot box, but only if you're willing to vote for the other guy. SF has been under one- party rule for a long time, and if incumbents don't fear for their jobs, they have no incentive to do what they say.
As an example, the city of Reykjavík has 23 representatives in the city council. They are voted proportionally from parties represented distinct views. San Francisco board of supervisors have 11 members, less then half of Reykjavík’s despite having more then 6 times the population. ~And to make it worse, each member is voted on a first past the post system.~ [Edit: Not true as pointed out in a comment]
The San Francisco mayor is voted in a separate election and is not on the board of supervisors. Since this is a position where a lot of political capital is to be gained it is often used as an opportunity for a politician seeking a career, rather then as a passive position willing to let diverse opinions and find consensus among differing views.
None of this is voter’s fault. Rather there is a systemic problem which can only be fixed by the people who are benefiting from the status quo.