the overton window aka “the window of discourse” is literally about talking, and making things more acceptable by their existence in the public consciousness
the more people TALK about alternative voting mechanisms, the more likely it is for some change to occur… 1 person can’t just up and change the system overnight, but by “signalling” as you’ve dismissively called it, it makes it more likely that other people talk about it and that makes it more likely that it becomes policy
How does “signaling” translate to policy? The majority of Americans want abortion codified, legal weed, single payer healthcare, increased gun protection, and more. Why do you think these haven’t passed?
these are separate issues; i never said signalling is the end game, but it has to start there and build
if you want IRV etc to be in the same category as abortion rights and cannabis (as in majority of people think “why the fuck isn’t this done yet?” rather than “huh? what?”) then it starts with simply convincing politicians to acknowledge their support for it - heck even acknowledging it as an issue
there is literally no way to get to policy through a grassroots without it first having a few people “signalling”
the way you do for literally anything else that becomes policy… discussion is an absolute requirement to forming policy. it is, without exception, the only way to start making any change
that’s called politics mate, and since it’s varied and complex - obviously so - i refuse to engage because i no longer believe you’re acting in good faith
the overton window aka “the window of discourse” is literally about talking, and making things more acceptable by their existence in the public consciousness
the more people TALK about alternative voting mechanisms, the more likely it is for some change to occur… 1 person can’t just up and change the system overnight, but by “signalling” as you’ve dismissively called it, it makes it more likely that other people talk about it and that makes it more likely that it becomes policy
How does “signaling” translate to policy? The majority of Americans want abortion codified, legal weed, single payer healthcare, increased gun protection, and more. Why do you think these haven’t passed?
these are separate issues; i never said signalling is the end game, but it has to start there and build
if you want IRV etc to be in the same category as abortion rights and cannabis (as in majority of people think “why the fuck isn’t this done yet?” rather than “huh? what?”) then it starts with simply convincing politicians to acknowledge their support for it - heck even acknowledging it as an issue
there is literally no way to get to policy through a grassroots without it first having a few people “signalling”
How do you start? How does it “build?” How does this translate into reality?
Reality doesn’t run on 40k Ork magic logic, ideas don’t become material reality if you believe hard enough.
are you literally questioning whether concrete policy comes from discussion? do you think 1 guy just snaps his fingers and makes it so?
politics doesn’t require 1 action… politics and swaying large groups of people requires those people to discuss and support to build over time
I am asking you how you translate broad discussion into enacted policy.
the way you do for literally anything else that becomes policy… discussion is an absolute requirement to forming policy. it is, without exception, the only way to start making any change
what comes after that is varied and complex
Yes. I am asking you about the “varied and complex” proceeses that turn talked about policy into policy.
that’s called politics mate, and since it’s varied and complex - obviously so - i refuse to engage because i no longer believe you’re acting in good faith