> Shop floor assistant at an Apple store gets the same say as the VP legal
In a representative democracy, a clerk in the social security office doesn't have the same authority and scope of power in the day to day operation of government as the Attorney-General. They both have the same say in, say, electing a member of Congress, just as shop floor assistant and a corporate VP who both had equal holdings in the relevant company's stock on things that go to votes of the shareholders.
> > If enough people think it's important - then it is important by definition.
> Your logic is bad. If enough people think that vacinations cause autism, does that make it true?
Your logic is bad. You draw a false equivalence between a matter of objective fact (causality) and a matter of subjective preference (importance). The two are not parallel.
> just as shop floor assistant and a corporate VP who both had equal holdings in the relevant company's stock on things that go to votes of the shareholders.
That's the point - in that logic, the amount of votes you get in a democracy would be tied to how much land you own. Which IMHO seems a probably better way to do things.
In a representative democracy, a clerk in the social security office doesn't have the same authority and scope of power in the day to day operation of government as the Attorney-General. They both have the same say in, say, electing a member of Congress, just as shop floor assistant and a corporate VP who both had equal holdings in the relevant company's stock on things that go to votes of the shareholders.
> > If enough people think it's important - then it is important by definition.
> Your logic is bad. If enough people think that vacinations cause autism, does that make it true?
Your logic is bad. You draw a false equivalence between a matter of objective fact (causality) and a matter of subjective preference (importance). The two are not parallel.