Can we ban "Romney would be worse" from our discussions on DU?

[bigtree]

37. it's not as if outcomes are automatic

There may well be undue influence on our national legislature from interests removed from what voters actually want. but, the process and agenda isn't an automatic one. The ultimate decisions Congress makes isn't a compactly insulated process. Their actions are guided in many ways by the support or advocacy that Americans provide with their votes and their activism. We can certainly argue that there isn't enough of an influence from that voting public, but there is no way that a Congress left to its own design and will is going to produce the same result as it does as a result of our input from the outside.

Now, I can understand that folks in reliably blue states can sometimes afford to make other choices on their ballots and not risk that there will be a majority of votes making things worse than they would be by allowing the advancement of a republican candidate. But that's different from the suggestion that there's no influence at all in the votes of folks in the vast majority of the nation where these races are competitive.

Of course, those votes don't automatically solve anything. We still need to be active to ensure that our voices are heard at appropriations time. That's the nature of our democracy that there's a deliberative process after we vote which isn't assured or guaranteed. We can't just ignore the fact that there are myriads of disparate and diverse interests from around the nation which need to be reconciled if there is to be any advancement of initiatives or ideals into action or law. That's not going to be an easy or assured process, no matter what the level of integrity is among legislators.