> Whereas people in SF who have voting rights DO have power over what politicians do about the local homeless situation.
But they don't. Politics is a winner-take-all system, as you said yourself: "voting out the ruling government might mean voting in someone they disagree with on other issues"
As we know from arrow's theorem, a sufficiently complex schedule of multiple choices (in this case competing policy issues that must be represented by a slate of government officials) can wind up misrepresenting group preferences no matter what the preference selection criteria.
The answer of course could be to fix the homelessness situation outside of the political system, however as the tiny homes for homeless in LA guy found out, often people are powerless to go outside the system, too, they will find themselves shut out for trying to do some good.
> Whereas people in SF who have voting rights DO have power over what politicians do about the local homeless situation.
But they don't. Politics is a winner-take-all system, as you said yourself: "voting out the ruling government might mean voting in someone they disagree with on other issues"
As we know from arrow's theorem, a sufficiently complex schedule of multiple choices (in this case competing policy issues that must be represented by a slate of government officials) can wind up misrepresenting group preferences no matter what the preference selection criteria.
The answer of course could be to fix the homelessness situation outside of the political system, however as the tiny homes for homeless in LA guy found out, often people are powerless to go outside the system, too, they will find themselves shut out for trying to do some good.