RE: The sentiments of your constituency (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Zonie63 -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/7/2013 4:46:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

So you are in the house or the senate and it is up to you to vote on whether or not to at least legislatively empower the president to militarily go into Syria.

Do you vote your conscience, meaning what you feel yourself ?

Do you vote based on secret classified 'intel.' Intel (intelligence) that of course your constituents can't know ?

Or...do you vote based on a consultation of the sentiments of your constituency and how they called and expressed them and in your conversations with them ?

I like the last because if we are a democratic republic...any representative is obligated to vote as his voters wish. While the majority rules, [it] has a right, if need be...to be wrong.

What say you ?


I would vote for whatever is best for the practical interests of the American people (which may not coincide with the interests of the corporate elite).

One only needs to ask and answer the following questions:

1. In the best case scenario, what is the most Americans can potentially gain from this?

2. In the worst case scenario, what is the most Americans can potentially lose from this?

Sentiment or conscience really shouldn't enter into it. It's simply a matter of looking at the balance between potential gain vs. potential loss.



MrRodgers -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/7/2013 11:06:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple

Only around twenty percent of the populace of Ancient
Greece were considered citizens.

The educated elites didn't think this democracy was very
fair to them. They thought it gave the poor and uneducated
who were of course greater in number power over them.

Founding fathers like Alexander Hamilton were not unaware
of this. They feared the tyranny of the majority and the
ochlocracy it would result in. Representative democracy is
a way to avoid the extremes of ochlocracy and oligarchy.

Built into the premise of electing representatives is we
are doing so as something greater than selecting them
to be the mouthpieces for the majority. If a congressman
voted for something that in his mind and heart he knew
to be wrong to appease the majority view of the people
he represents because he was afraid of losing his seat
he would be little different from someone who accepts
a bribe.


But what remains then is the tyranny of the minority where the pres. need only gather simple majorities of 625 people to take the country into war and all without even declaring war. WWI, Vietnam even Korea one could argue were unpopular and thus un-democratically pursued wars. WWII was the only one where most pf the country was behind it and only because of Pearl Harbor.

This creates according to many and I agree to a large extent...the imperial presidency. That puts war power and more in the hands of a small powerful elite. For this, the country very often pays a heavy price and in more than in wars.

Many thus argue that to vote the sentiments of your constituency to be re-elected, is the essence of a democracy and power resides in a constituency of the majority specifically to prevent an imperial presidency.



brokendom111 -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/8/2013 4:17:59 AM)

It sure does, we see a lot of young veterans at the VA Hospitals now missing limbs and with horrible injuries.



DaddySatyr -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/8/2013 5:03:51 AM)

Excellent topic!

I tend to sort of agree with almost every word that Bama typed

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

The problem comes with the classified intell
It can tell you something that your constituents can't know and that you can never defend yourself by telling them. This can force you to vote against their will and hope to survive,
That said my view on Syria is still our enemies are destroying each other , don't interrupt



but, there are a couple of interesting points, floating around. I'll try to keep them short and simple.

First, I think too much information is classified as ... well ... classified or top secret . While I'm convinced that there is some need for some small amount of information to be kept from the general public, I think "Top Secret" has become a catch-all for all of the shit that these politician assholes want to hide from us. I think it speaks to the character of the representatives.

Now, there's a bit of an issue with scenario 2, as laid out by DesideriScuri:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

2. People are elected to make the decisions as he/she sees best, even if that means opposing the majority of your constituents. You vote for the person that most closely aligns with your own personal beliefs and live with the carnage (or lack thereof) that follows.



Let's forget, for the moment, that I believe that "the power of the vote" has become a romantic anachronism (Hence; people saying they try to vote out there their representatives but, for some reason, the representatives never change).

Representatives, "voting their conscience" instead of the will of the people does nothing but to increase the great chasm of distrust that the American citizen feels for their elected officials.

Certainly, I reject as sophistry the idea that our elected officials become "rulers" as soon as they're sworn in. I don't believe that's the way this country was set up to work.

I think the representatives that don't vote the will of their district (on EVERY VOTE) have some very serious ego issues. Ego issues serious enough to possibly disqualify them.



Peace,



Michael

Second Edit (the first was for spelling and is well marked):

Someone also mentioned the senate as opposed to the house.

I believe that there is a possibility for a distinction to be made.

This country was set up so that the minority opinion would never be completely drowned out. As a holder of minority opinions, my whole life, I appreciate this.

Perhaps, the senators could possibly (please notice my "hedging") "vote their conscience" but certainly, congressmen or The House of Representatives should invest in the purchase of a dictionary.



Peace,



M.P.C.



leonine -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/8/2013 8:24:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Excellent topic!

I tend to sort of agree with almost every word that Bama typed

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

The problem comes with the classified intell
It can tell you something that your constituents can't know and that you can never defend yourself by telling them. This can force you to vote against their will and hope to survive,
That said my view on Syria is still our enemies are destroying each other , don't interrupt



but, there are a couple of interesting points, floating around. I'll try to keep them short and simple.

First, I think too much information is classified as ... well ... classified or top secret . While I'm convinced that there is some need for some small amount of information to be kept from the general public, I think "Top Secret" has become a catch-all for all of the shit that these politician assholes want to hide from us. I think it speaks to the character of the representatives.


Agreed, and further to the question of relying on "secret" intel that you can't share: in the first place, politicians like the idea of knowing more than the great unwashed, it makes them feel superior, and that leads them to put more faith in that intel than it might deserve. Even after Sadaam's WMD should have discredited the whole system.

Secondly, "secret" intel can't be checked. If your department gives you a figure for takeup of Medicare or incidence of swine flu, and you're not sure about their honesty or their competence, you can get at least a rough cut of the data elsewhere (these days, you can probably get it without leaving your computer desk.) But if you doubt the good faith of the security services - as anyone with a grain of scepticism does these days - you either believe what they tell you or you don't, no third option.

We had a Prime Minister in the '60s and '70s who believed that the security services were spying on him and undermining him, and was laughed at for saying so. 30 years later, when they have to unclassify most secret papers, it turned out that he was right. He was a socialist, the kind of wishy-washy ones that used to sometimes get into government in this country, and that was enough to convince some Colonel Blimp in MI5 that he might be a Soviet agent and it was their patriotic duty to plot against him. If I were in Obama's shoes, I'd feel forced to weigh every bit of intel about the Middle East against the possibility that the agents supplying it believe he really is a crypto-Muslim, and slant their reports accordingly.



JeffBC -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/8/2013 8:37:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Representatives, "voting their conscience" instead of the will of the people does nothing but to increase the great chasm of distrust that the American citizen feels for their elected officials.

And therein lies the rub. The statement "I know more than you do so you should trust me" fails because I don't trust them... not a one of them... and I have along, well documented, and really good set of reasons for that. These people are all liars and most of them are crooks. They are all playing game of thrones and they want me to be a chess piece on their board.

Yeah... and this is what I am supposed to trust. How about if Obama wants me to trust him he starts acting in a trust-worthy fashion... just as we would recommend to any BDSM dominant?

quote:

Certainly, I reject as sophistry the idea that our elected officials become "rulers" as soon as they're sworn in. I don't believe that's the way this country was set up to work.

*chuckles* No, but it is the de-facto truth.

What I want to know is why "voting their conscience" doesn't equal exactly the same thing as the will of the people. Honestly, if I was a representative and I knew something which, in my considered opinion, forced me to vote against the will of the people I'd go back to my constituents and tell them that... resignation in hand. I'd say something like, "This is so important that I cannot vote any other way and I'll put my career on the line. Tell me you still want to go the other way and I resign here and now. I cannot tell you the details but I can at least demonstrate how critical I think it is."



DaddySatyr -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/8/2013 8:55:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

What I want to know is why "voting their conscience" doesn't equal exactly the same thing as the will of the people. Honestly, if I was a representative and I knew something which, in my considered opinion, forced me to vote against the will of the people I'd go back to my constituents and tell them that... resignation in hand. I'd say something like, "This is so important that I cannot vote any other way and I'll put my career on the line. Tell me you still want to go the other way and I resign here and now. I cannot tell you the details but I can at least demonstrate how critical I think it is."



That would require a sense of honor and duty. I think you've forgotten that we're talking about politicians, here.

ETA: Actually, if they felt that strongly and they had that sense of honor and duty, why wouldn't they just resign, before casting an "invalid" vote?



JeffBC -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/8/2013 9:01:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
That would require a sense of honor and duty. I think you've forgotten that we're talking about politicians, here.

*chuckles* Yeah. But they want us to trust them anyway.

quote:

ETA: Actually, if they felt that strongly and they had that sense of honor and duty, why wouldn't they just resign, before casting an "invalid" vote?

I thought about my answer carefully. I'd go back to the people and do my damndest to convince them because the only situation I could even see myself doing this in a LOT of people are going to die if we get it wrong. So first step is to show "the courage of my own convictions" in a last ditch hope. 2nd step is to resign. Under no circumstances would I assume the mantle of "ruler".

edited to add
If enough were on the line and I was certain of it, then I'd vote my conscience. Say.... we were looking at global thermonuclear annihilation and i mean "right now" not in some sort of theoretical chain of maybe's. Then I'd offer to resign after the fact.



DaddySatyr -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/8/2013 9:52:44 AM)

I've never understood, in this day-and-age, why representatives don't have some kind of poll on their websites and ask their constituents: "How do you want me to vote on ... guns ... drugs ... etc.?"

They don't even try to do that. Were I stupid enough to run for public office, that would be one of my campaign promises.



chatterbox24 -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/8/2013 10:01:04 AM)

This sums it about up for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEKJp9BMzUU



brokendom111 -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/8/2013 11:52:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I've never understood, in this day-and-age, why representatives don't have some kind of poll on their websites and ask their constituents: "How do you want me to vote on ... guns ... drugs ... etc.?"

They don't even try to do that. Were I stupid enough to run for public office, that would be one of my campaign promises.


Satyr, I was thinking that same thing a few weeks ago!
When I was a kid in Massachusetts' 7 th district in the 1950's every six months or so my mother would fill out a survey form from our congressman, Torbert McDonald. She'd then mail it back to his office and they'd tabulate the results on the differant subjects and that's how he'd vote.
I can imagine the questions; "Do you think President Eisenhower is doing a good job? Rate 1 to 10."
"What should we do with Sen. Joe McCarthy D. Minn.?" Etc, etc.
All congressmen have Franking privledges (free postage) so they should start doing that again. That fact alone shows how important it is that our elected reps stay in touch with The People and vote the way we tell them to vote, otherwise why have them.
The last time I got a "survey" questionaire in the mail was from senator John Sununu when I lived in N.H. in the 1990's.



JeffBC -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/8/2013 12:20:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I've never understood, in this day-and-age, why representatives don't have some kind of poll on their websites and ask their constituents: "How do you want me to vote on ... guns ... drugs ... etc.?"

This is what took me so long to understand. They are NOT representatives. They are rulers. So much makes so much more sense once you shift to that viewpoint.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125