This kind of assumes that the system is actually/legitimately democratic, and overlooks that one vote has the consequence (in theory anyways) of determining decisions on thousands of sub-issues. We vote for people, not issues, and it's highly questionable the degree to which the people we vote for are sincere in their stated goals.
> It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s
Depending on how one measures it, ignoring that we tend to measure such things heuristically, on a relative scale, and tend to not consider counterfactual causality.
> Beyond that, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."[0]
It is an extremely popular meme (particularly lately, perhaps in part due to an extremely successful guerilla marketing campaign), but it would be interesting to know what is actually true.
It's possible that I'm just tired, or that I'm just not so bright, but I don't really understand what you mean here, in the context of the discussion around housing inventories? To which system(s) are you referring?
>and overlooks that one vote has the consequence (in theory anyways) of determining decisions on thousands of sub-issues.
Again, I'm not at all clear on what, exactly you're talking about here. Are you advocating an Athenian-style form of democracy[0]? In case you're not familiar, that would be akin (although certainly not identical) to California's ballot proposition system.
Do you believe that all laws, from Constitutional amendments (or the US Constitution, for that matter) to local sidewalk width ordinances should be individually voted upon by every citizen affected by a specific measure?
>We vote for people, not issues, and it's highly questionable the degree to which the people we vote for are sincere in their stated goals.
Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds).
That goes back to the statement you appear to be condemning -- [paraphrasing myself] that if your elected representative isn't doing their job or is untrustworthy, we have regularly scheduled elections to address such issues. What's more, we have mechanisms in place to remove elected (and unelected) officials who abuse their office or act in ways that are unacceptable to the voting public.
Is that insufficient in your mind? If so, how, specifically, would you change the system?
>> It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s
>Depending on how one measures it, ignoring that we tend to measure such things heuristically, on a relative scale, and tend to not consider counterfactual causality.
I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis. Unfortunately, while such an analysis is interesting, it doesn't provide real information. Rather, it only provides a platform for speculations that can't ever be proved. Stanislaw Lem made a similar "argument"[2] which demonstrates the (lack of) usefulness of such an analysis:
Everyone knows that dragons don’t exist. But while
this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman,
it does not suffice for the scientific mind. The
School of Higher Neantical Nillity is in fact wholly
unconcerned with what does exist. Indeed, the
banality of existence has been so amply demonstrated,
there is no need for us to discuss it any further
here. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem
analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of
dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely
hypothetical. They were all, one might say,
nonexistent, but each non-existed in an entirely
different way.
>It is an extremely popular meme (particularly lately, perhaps in part due to an extremely successful guerilla marketing campaign), but it would be interesting to know what is actually true.
Then you're in luck. There has been quite a bit of research into this area. Perhaps you should learn more?
Here are a few links to get you started. N.B., these are just a few, semi-randomly (selected because they address your question) selected items from the first page of a web search for "measures of success between political systems." I'm sure you can find much more if you're actually interested (rather than trolling -- which would make me sad).
https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-system/Stable-pol...
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:663508/FULLTEXT0... [PDF]
https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/file... [PDF]
https://researchoutreach.org/articles/political-systems-econ...
In that context, what do you suggest as the least worst form of government? Or do you reject government completely (a la Anarcho-capitalism[3] or straight-up anarchism[4])?
I look forward to haviung a robust discussion of facts and logically consistent ideas around this with you.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1132401-everyone-knows-that...
Democracy - more specifically, the various implementations (both the abstract design and the comprehensive physical practice) that we use today, but most specifically American democracy.
> Again, I'm not at all clear on what, exactly you're talking about here. Are you advocating an Athenian-style form of democracy[0]? In case you're not familiar, that would be akin (although certainly not identical) to California's ballot proposition system.
I'm thinking more along the lines of some form of direct democracy - I am partial to this one, but am far from an expert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
And yes of course, there is no shortage of problems with simply implementing something like that.
> Do you believe that all laws, from Constitutional amendments (or the US Constitution, for that matter) to local sidewalk width ordinances should be individually voted upon by every citizen affected by a specific measure?
It's an idea worth considering imo.
> Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds).
110% agree - hence, I prefer to think in terms of ~"plausible range of epistemically sound possibilities", since what is true is typically impossible to achieve, and is not necessary anyways.
> That goes back to the statement you appear to be condemning -- [paraphrasing myself] that if your elected representative isn't doing their job or is untrustworthy, we have regularly scheduled elections to address such issues. What's more, we have mechanisms in place to remove elected (and unelected) officials who abuse their office or act in ways that are unacceptable to the voting public.
Indeed we do - whether this design "works" as intended/perceived is another matter though.
> Is that insufficient in your mind? If so, how, specifically, would you change the system?
I think "we the people" would benefit in many ways from a serious first principles based investigation into a complete rewrite of democracy. At the very least, it would be an extremely educational and maybe even ~enlightening undertaking, depending on how one went about it of course (putting The Experts in charge might not be an ideal approach, for obvious reasons).
> I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis.
Not really. I prefer something more along the lines of thinking in very strict (but dynamic / extremist) epistemology, ontological complexity, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps some new styles of thinking will have to be developed along the way.
> Then you're in luck. There has been quite a bit of research into this area.
Has the truth been revealed?
> Perhaps you should learn more?
Surely! And perhaps you should as well.
> Here are a few links to get you started. N.B., these are just a few, semi-randomly (selected because they address your question) selected items from the first page of a web search for "measures of success between political systems."
This sounds like an investigation into that which exists - it's certainly useful, but I am also interested in that which does not yet exist.
> I'm sure you can find much more if you're actually interested (rather than trolling -- which would make me sad).
I think this touches on a very interesting phenomenon that can be observed: in internet discussions, it is not uncommon to encounter people shitting on the poor thinking of the members of their various outgroups and claiming that they should ~"think better". But what's interesting is that almost without exception (in my experience anyways), if a person is to engage with such people by doing the very thing they recommend, the typical response is: poor thinking (rhetoric, insults, memes, evasion, etc). It seems to me that all humans have an upper bound of ability to be serious, and an extreme aversion to discussing sacred cows.
> In that context, what do you suggest as the least worst form of government?
I consider such things to be unknown - if one would like knowledge, then there are no shortages of examples of how to go about acquiring it - this scenario is surely trickier than many, but human beings have demonstrated themselves to be quite clever, when they set their mind to something.
> Or do you reject government completely (a la Anarcho-capitalism[3] or straight-up anarchism[4])?
I am open to all ideas, but have a bias towards competent coordination in complex systems.
> I look forward to having a robust discussion of facts and logically consistent ideas around this with you.
Thank you for the kind words, and I look forward to it as well.
>Democracy - more specifically, the various implementations (both the abstract design and the comprehensive physical practice) that we use today, but most specifically American democracy.
What, specifically do you find illegitemate about American democracy?
Getting some specific thoughts about this would be nice. Much better than what you did say, which I interepreted (perhaps incorrectly -- but the lack of detail is pretty telling) as a metaphorical rolled-up newspaper along with "American democracy bad! Bad American democracy!"
I have specific issues with the American political system myself, including but not limited to, the pervasive impact of money in our political system, especially as to how it strongly reinforces the current two-party hegemony.
However, I don't see it as illegitemate as you appear to do. So I'll ask again. What specifically makes American democracy "illegitemate?"
>> Again, I'm not at all clear on what, exactly you're talking about here. Are you advocating an Athenian-style form of democracy[0]? In case you're not familiar, that would be akin (although certainly not identical) to California's ballot proposition system.
>I'm thinking more along the lines of some form of direct democracy - I am partial to this one, but am far from an expert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
>And yes of course, there is no shortage of problems with simply implementing something like that.
It's an interesting idea. And one that certainly deserves (and has/is getting) attention and investigation.
As you note, many issues with implementation of such a system including universal access, the role of money/moneyed interests and the time/capacity individuals have to investigate, comprehend and form opinions about the dozens (perhaps more?) of local, state and federal laws debated every single day.
That said, I support the idea of tweaking democratic processes to improve governance. Ranked Choice Voting[0] comes to mind.
>> Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds).
>110% agree - hence, I prefer to think in terms of ~"plausible range of epistemically sound possibilities", since what is true is typically impossible to achieve, and is not necessary anyways.
I'm not really clear on what you mean here. I didn't say anything about "truth," which is irrelevant (as you note) to a person's state of mind/internal thought processes. As for what's "epistemically plausible," that's so broad as to be practically useless.
For example, it's "epistemically plausible" for someone to support the "decent, hard working people of this great nation." But such a statement is so vague that it's meaningless.
>>I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis.
>Not really. I prefer something more along the lines of thinking in very strict (but dynamic / extremist) epistemology, ontological complexity, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps some new styles of thinking will have to be developed along the way.
In that case, you shouldn't have used the term "counterfactual casuation[sic]" which has a well defined meaning.
I'm sorry, but that sentence is a word salad that doesn't describe, at least not in terms someone not living inside your head, what you "prefer." You make a statement about "strict epistemology" and "ontological complexity," but those must be employed in any reasonable discussion of just about anything beyond what I want to eat for dinner. What, specifically, is this "yadda, yadda, yadda" you mention, as it seems that's where some semblance of a reasonable argument might lie?
>> Here are a few links to get you started. N.B., these are just a few, semi-randomly (selected because they address your question) selected items from the first page of a web search for "measures of success between political systems."
>This sounds like an investigation into that which exists - it's certainly useful, but I am also interested in that which does not yet exist.
That's great! I'm glad you're interested. But you have made a whole raft of assertions which you haven't supported with any sort of data or even logical analysis, despite having the opportunity (and taking that opportunity -- twice) to elucidate your point of view.
What's more, understanding how current (and historical) systems (don't) work is critical to any attempt to tweak or rewrite the rules of any complex system.
That makes it really difficult to take you seriously.
>> I'm sure you can find much more if you're actually interested (rather than trolling -- which would make me sad).
>I think this touches on a very interesting phenomenon that can be observed: in internet discussions, it is not uncommon to encounter people shitting on the poor thinking of the members of their various outgroups and claiming that they should ~"think better". But what's interesting is that almost without exception (in my experience anyways), if a person is to engage with such people by doing the very thing they recommend, the typical response is: poor thinking (rhetoric, insults, memes, evasion, etc). It seems to me that all humans have an upper bound of ability to be serious, and an extreme aversion to discussing sacred cows.
I can't (and wouldn't try to) speak for anyone else, but in this particular case, I'm not doing any of the things you list here. As such, I have to ask why this is relevant, unless you're describing your own actions.
I don't insist that you "think better." I don't know what "group" (well, other than human -- and so am I. I guess we're in the same group huh?) to which you might belong, so I have no basis to class you (other than I noted parenthetically above) in any in/out group.
And I haven't engaged in any of the other things you mention. So I ask again: Why is that relevant here?
Or are you making the (unfounded) assumption that I understand you and what's in your mind (impossible, as we've already discussed) and am just baiting you. I assure you (the best I can do in this forum) that I am not. Rather, whether it's due to ignorance/stupidity on my part or poor communication on yours, you have not made yourself clear here at all.
That's what I'm asking for. Communicate clearly and provide detail as to what supports the ideas you're presenting. You have done neither. That's not intended to be an insult or reprobation, rather it's the minimum that's required to have a reasoned, fruitful discussion.
You go on at some length after this, but the low information density of your comments makes it difficult to discuss this stuff. You've layered vague ideas about governance on top of assertions that those ideas don't support.
I'm happy to continue this conversation with you, but I'm having a difficult time understanding what the hell you're talking about.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk that up to me being a native English speaker.
Should you choose to provide specific, relevant and supportable ideas, I will happily continue to engage.
I hope you have a good day.
Also: excuse spelling/grammar errors, I will try to do a cleanup pass a bit later.
> What, specifically do you find illegitimate about American democracy?
That it (at least implicitly) claims to be "Of the people, by the people, and for the people", that the projected and perceived as accurate narrative is that it exercises "the will of the people". When in fact, the will of the people is not known, because very little attempt has been made to determine what the will of the people is (and other things: "the people" are, generally speaking, "not too bright", and the causality behind this unfortunate circumstances is not known or well investigated, but if you were to dig into it, what you will typically find at the end of the strong is: the government).
I could go on and on and on, and based on extensive experience discussing such topics with a very wide range of people, I confidently predict that if we were to get into the fine-grained details, before long you would balk, you would accuse me of "overthinking", being "pedantic", start making various "ya well" style excuses, and so on and so forth.
Or another way of putting it might be something like:
select distinct behavior_type from human_activity where topic like '%government%' and reality_level='perception'
At this point, a typical cards that are typically played (by my counterpoint in the conversation, or dang if he was to encounter this thread) is something along the lines of "we can't know anything, nihilism", "you're talking metaphysical jibber jabber" "your words have no meaning", "HN is not the place for this sort of X", etc. This sort of thing, I propose to you, is your nature.
You want detail? I am at your disposal, and I suspect my willingness to discuss what is true (or may be, or not) can easily outlast your ability to remain curious about what is true.
> Getting some specific thoughts about this would be nice. Much better than what you did say, which I interpreted (perhaps incorrectly -- but the lack of detail is pretty telling) as a metaphorical rolled-up newspaper along with "American democracy bad! Bad American democracy!"
"the lack of detail is pretty telling" is an interesting (but not uncommon) phrase. When you say this, what are you referring to? I will take a guess: might it be ~reality?
> I have specific issues with the American political system myself, including but not limited to, the pervasive impact of money in our political system, especially as to how it strongly reinforces the current two-party hegemony.
To my style of thinking, this is one item (with an unknown epistemic status, and an unknown comprehensive-causality-weighted importance), in a set of utterly unknown (but perhaps imagined as known) size.
> However, I don't see it as illegitimate as you appear to do. So I'll ask again. What specifically makes American democracy "illegitimate?"
I propose that a highly optimal way to think about such things is as a tautological statement + question: "What makes American democracy illegitimate, is that which makes American democracy illegitimate. So then: what is it that makes American democracy illegitimate, accurately and comprehensively?"
Do you possess the answer to this question? Does it seem like you possess the answer to this question? Do you care what the answer to this questions is? And when considering such questions, be mindful if your mind is conceptualizing them as binaries (True/False) or a spectrum (the degree to which each "is" (or may be) True/False).
Do you like this sort of thinking? In my experience, most people not only do not like it, but they reject it outright, often with strong emotions and supreme confidence. I believe that this is our nature, at least for now. (Here it may be useful to consider the history of the aggregate conceptualization of (aka: ~reality) African Americans by the population of the USA, and elsewhere.) Sometimes humanity can modify the fabric of reality, but usually they seem unable (and unwilling).
(continued...)
This reminds me somewhat of this homeless senior I know that hangs out at the 7/11 by my house - he too "is" "getting attention", in that I bought him a coffee last week.
> As you note, many issues with implementation of such a system including universal access, the role of money/moneyed interests and the time/capacity individuals have to investigate, comprehend and form opinions about the dozens (perhaps more?) of local, state and federal laws debated every single day.
Indeed. There's a surprising amount of complexity in reality (although it tends to not seem that way).
> That said, I support the idea of tweaking democratic processes to improve governance. Ranked Choice Voting[0] comes to mind.
Why only tweak? Do you support the general notion of society having a serious(!), mainstream conversation (substantial MSM coverage) about the merits of a complete rewrite?
>>> Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds).
>>110% agree - hence, I prefer to think in terms of ~"plausible range of epistemically sound possibilities", since what is true is typically impossible to achieve, and is not necessary anyways.
> I'm not really clear on what you mean here. I didn't say anything about "truth,"...
Is "one can really know the mind of anyone" not necessarily intertwined with truth: that which is(!) the state of a person's mind? (Assuming we care about it of course.)
> which is irrelevant (as you note) to a person's state of mind/internal thought processes.
I said Truth cannot be achieved, not that it is irrelevant. Although for the vast majority of instances of mind, I would agree that what is true does not matter (at the perceptual level) - but there are exceptions here and there (me, for instance).
> As for what's "epistemically plausible," that's so broad as to be practically useless.
By what means have you come to possess comprehensive knowledge about what "is" "useless"? Useless for what? To what end?
> For example, it's "epistemically plausible" for someone to support the "decent, hard working people of this great nation." But such a statement is so vague that it's meaningless.
Vagueness erases meaning? Perhaps in your mind, but this is definitely not how my mind works.
>>> I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis.
>> Not really. I prefer something more along the lines of thinking in very strict (but dynamic / extremist) epistemology, ontological complexity, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps some new styles of thinking will have to be developed along the way.
> In that case, you shouldn't have used the term "counterfactual casuation[sic]" which has a well defined meaning.
Can you explain why the "well defined" "meaning" of counterfactual causation is somehow incompatible with what I've said?
> I'm sorry, but that sentence is a word salad...
The theory of relativity and many other things are also word salad to those who lack the necessary background knowledge to understand it. (And if you have the urge to point out that because this is true, it does not prove that what I've said is also true, then don't bother, I well realize this.)
> ...that doesn't describe, at least not in terms someone not living inside your head, what you "prefer." You make a statement about "strict epistemology" and "ontological complexity," but those must be employed in any reasonable discussion of just about anything beyond what I want to eat for dinner. What, specifically, is this "yadda, yadda, yadda" you mention, as it seems that's where some semblance of a reasonable argument might lie?
Herein lies complexity that would take essay length writing to even begin to address it with any precision. I think there's more than enough here already to measure the quantity of curiosity you can muster and sustain, taking into consideration the ~"utterly shit" communication medium (platform, language, etc) we are using.
>> This sounds like an investigation into that which exists - it's certainly useful, but I am also interested in that which does not yet exist.
> That's great! I'm glad you're interested. But you have made a whole raft of assertions which you haven't supported with any sort of data or even logical analysis, despite having the opportunity (and taking that opportunity -- twice) to elucidate your point of view.
I propose that reality (and communication about) is highly contextual, and that humanity's current norm is ~"good enough". When writing this, did you consider the distinction (that exists somewhere) between haven't supported in my model and haven't supported in this conversation? I do realize you explicitly specified which one (in this conversation), but my question is whether you had the other one in working memory when composing the above.
> What's more, understanding how current (and historical) systems (don't) work is critical to any attempt to tweak or rewrite the rules of any complex system.
Indeed - we best have on our thinking caps!
(continued...)
Agreed - this does indeed seem to be the nature of the default mind, as it has been trained (mainly in the AI sense of the word, but also in the ~propaganda/culture sense). But to your credit, you are exerting substantially higher than average effort to discuss and understand - credit where credit is due and all that (gosh....have I committed a cultural faux pas here? If so, sincere apologies, but limited).
> I can't (and wouldn't try to) speak for anyone else, but in this particular case, I'm not doing any of the things you list here.
Not at all? If you had, would you necessarily know?
> As such, I have to ask why this is relevant, unless you're describing your own actions.
Roughly: https://www.vedanet.com/the-meaning-of-maya-the-illusion-of-...
> I don't insist that you "think better." I don't know what "group" (well, other than human -- and so am I. I guess we're in the same group huh?) to which you might belong, so I have no basis to class you (other than I noted parenthetically above) in any in/out group.
A basis to (subconsciously) classify someone is not necessary, much of that is performed for us automatically (thanks evolution!).
> And I haven't engaged in any of the other things you mention. So I ask again: Why is that relevant here?
In return I ask: what is it you are talking about here? Reality?
> Or are you making the (unfounded) assumption that I understand you and what's in your mind (impossible, as we've already discussed) and am just baiting you. I assure you (the best I can do in this forum) that I am not.
Very approximately, I would say what you are doing here is "humaning".
> Rather, whether it's due to ignorance/stupidity on my part or poor communication on yours, you have not made yourself clear here at all.
See "theory of relativity" above.
> That's what I'm asking for. Communicate clearly and provide detail as to what supports the ideas you're presenting. You have done neither. That's not intended to be an insult or reprobation, rather it's the minimum that's required to have a reasoned, fruitful discussion.
Which portion of the infinitely large, logically inconsistent/paradoxical/illusory/ virtual idea space would you like to discuss? And in what way? With English text on a forum? Houston, we have a problem.
> You go on at some length after this, but the low information density of your comments makes it difficult to discuss this stuff. You've layered vague ideas about governance on top of assertions that those ideas don't support.
You're not wrong!
You know what? I am starting to get the feeling that you may not have a proper understanding of the complexity of the problem space you are working in, it's composition and behavior, and so forth and so on. Nor do I, of course, but then understanding is not a binary.
> I'm happy to continue this conversation with you, but I'm having a difficult time understanding what the hell you're talking about.
Perhaps the complexity is beyond the capability of our tools. It seems to me that science has similar problems in a wide variety of ways...I wonder what they did to deal with this problem such that they could advance their field.
> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk that up to me being a native English speaker.
As am I, although I am "on the spectrum" (to put it nicely and imprecisely), so I think a common language is only a small slice of the problems we are experiencing.
> Should you choose to provide specific, relevant and supportable ideas, I will happily continue to engage.
99% of the general population is focused on object level details, or some bastardized illusion of that, my interest is in where that comes from.
> I hope you have a good day.
Thanks, you as well. I realize that the way I write is hard to understand (and not only because of the subject matter), but be that as it may, I propose to you that despite this, "something" does indeed exist here, and that it is worth understanding (or at least trying to understand), assuming that you ~truly care about the things you seem to care about (generally: the well being of the people within overall humanity - now, and in the future).
PS: for some extra fun: what do you think I am "up to" "here" (and elsewhere)? I will give you a hint: I propose to you that there is a "level" of sorts that ~exists, that this level can be ~seen, and that you currently do not have the means to see it.
How's that for provocative (and hyper-confident, plausibly bordering on sheer delusion) rhetoric!!?? But then at the same time: what if it's ~true? Or maybe even more interesting: what if it scales?
https://genius.com/Dr-seuss-oh-the-places-youll-go-excerpt-a...
(It's an interesting site, this genius.com - I wonder if there may be some unrealized and unharvested value there. I sometimes wonder if the same is true of the one we are on.)
And now I can't get that time back. Oh well.
Peace out.
Peace to you as well, fellow traveler!
I made an observation that mixing local politics with getting approval for an already set rules seems ripe for conflicts of interest, inconsistency, arbitrariness, predictably bad optics when local special interest groups get favorable treatment compared to less special (ie. poorer) groups.
basically separation of powers is missing at the local level. the executive branch (ie. civil service) should be separate from the local "legislature"
>I made an observation that mixing local politics with getting approval for an already set rules seems ripe for conflicts of interest, inconsistency, arbitrariness, predictably bad optics when local special interest groups get favorable treatment compared to less special (ie. poorer) groups.
Fair enough. My apologies if it seems I pushed a little hard on that. It's just that far too many people seem to take every opportunity to metaphorically roll up their newspaper and take swipes while yelling "Gub'mint bad! Bad gub'mint!"
I'm emphatically not claiming that's what you were doing, but knee-jerk condemnation of "gub'mint" is far too common in the US these days, which makes me a little over sensitive on that topic.
That idea is, at least in the US (and other democracies), ridiculous in the extreme given that we are the government, or at least we elect the folks who run it.
I agree. There are many opportunities for conflicts of interest, arbitrariness and outright graft, especially in state and local government.
That said, I'll repeat my statement from the comment to which you replied:
You elected those those folks. If they aren't doing
it right, then elect someone else.
>basically separation of powers is missing at the local level. the executive branch (ie. civil service) should be separate from the local "legislature"
Not sure how it is where you are, but we have separate "branches" where I live in NYC[1]. The Mayor (and myriad city agencies) makes up the "executive" and the city council (as well as local community boards -- at least in an advisory capacity) makes up the "legislative" branch.
They are separate entities and, just as it is in the Federal government, no legislator can simultaneously serve in the executive branch or vice versa.
I know that many (most?) parliamentary democracies don't operate that way, with sitting legislators from the ruling party/coalition serving in executive roles.
That's just not the case where I am, or in most other state and local governments in the US AFAIK.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Manes#Downfall_and_suic...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_New_York_City
Not sure why you're complaining about this. You elected those those folks. If they aren't doing it right, then elect someone else.
It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s
Me? I prefer a dictatorship. But, of course, only if I'm the dictator.
Beyond that, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."[0]
[0] often attributed (possibly apocryphal) to Winston Churchill