← Back to context

Comment by anigbrowl

14 years ago

Not only does it make it impossible for an elected official to take advice, it makes it impossible for voters to make reasoned and educated judgments about the actions of officials.

You know, here in San Francisco they put out a thick pamphlet every election with the full legal text of all statewide and city ballot initiatives, using typography to also show how the existing legislative language would changed or deleted if the ballot initiative were to pass.

I am the only person I know who sits down and reads them all every election cycle. I'm sure there must be others, but most people vote based on soundbites - and they might be making a more efficient use of their time than I do. economists refer to this as 'rational ignorance,' where the cost of educating oneself on a topic exceeds the value of the knowledge gained as a result.

Some people favor minarchy or isocracy; I used to, but have changed my mind. Call me paternalist, but I'd rather have a technocratic government, or maybe even a gnostocracy.

Even with that information, you still have nowhere near enough information to understand how the new laws will impact you. You have to understand who the major players are and how it will impact them. How have courts interpreted similar statements? Is this law being used as a wedge to affect other laws or voting patterns? I'm not saying don't read them, but you'll only catch really obvious or frivolous stuff that way unless you understand the ecosystem. Code ain't written in a vacuum either.