Dictating a metric is equivalent to dictating an outcome.

Voting, particularly anonymous voting distances the decision from the sway of group dynamics and permits individuality while still creating a group decision. Stock markets work the same way.

That's an argument that McCain and Clinton miscalculated the public's response to the holiday plan. As I indicated previously, that's not a hard argument to make and polling data can prove or disprove it. I don't know of any such polls but would like to see them. Anyone?

Clinton's recent decline in relative popularity is not evidence by itself. It could be due to any number of factors, and I'd point out that there has been no appreciable decline McCain's popularity despite his support for a similar policy.

With respect to whether majorities tend to be correct or not, I feel that question is significant and different enough from the gas tax as to warrant it's own debate.

It's easy to say the politicians are wrong, miscalculations happen and the truth will out in the polling numbers. But to say that masses of voters are wrong about their own interests ought to be harder, to go against them is by definition to say you know better then they do what is good for them.

That's not to say that large numbers of people are never wrong, it does happen (real estate bubble, internet bubble, 2004 presidential election). I think it just doesn't happen that often and claims of such shouldn't be thrown around lightly.

Formalizing the debate restricts participation somewhat, but I think it would improve the quality. It makes things less whimsical and more deliberate.

It's a bunky argument because it mixes pre and post fact statistics. It's like saying the odds of any specific combination being drawn in Powerball are 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 therefore no number will be drawn.