The sentiments of your constituency

The sentiments of your constituency (Full Version)

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

Message

MrRodgers -> The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 3:17:33 PM)
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 ?

popeye1250 -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 3:33:47 PM)
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 agree. That's WHY they're in office to do the bidding of The People.

MrRodgers -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 3:46:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 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 agree. That's WHY they're in office to do the bidding of The People. Yet, I saw on news blips that some are going to vote against their voter's wishes. That's how we continue to get into messes and not just on these votes. I wonder how many will get voted out because of it ? Likely none.

popeye1250 -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 3:53:27 PM)
I don't think so, when you PISS OFF The People you're just helping out your competition in the next election. Look at Anthony "Carlos Danger" Weiner. Do you think he's going to be elected to anything ever for the rest of his life? If you're the boss and the hired help tell you to go fuck yourself you fire them.

DsBound -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 3:54:14 PM)
I think if you're a Congressmen you should absolutely follow and be your constituents voice. With that said, I've always felt Senator's are there, with a little more of the touchy feely... they were given 6 year terms to prove or back up beliefs where congressmen are not.

JeffBC -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 4:04:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers 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. I say what you say with a caveat. I'm OK with our leaders exercising judgement. That, in theory, is what we pay them for. But when there is a clear and overwhelming mandate from those they claim to represent then they only have three choices: a) Admit that they are rulers not representatives. b) Convince the populace they are correct. c) Go with "the will of the people"

popeye1250 -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 4:14:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DsBound I think if you're a Congressmen you should absolutely follow and be your constituents voice. With that said, I've always felt Senator's are there, with a little more of the touchy feely... they were given 6 year terms to prove or back up beliefs where congressmen are not. "The Senate." Yes, the lessor of the two houses, "where congressmen go to die," "The Old Boy's Club," we really do need to do something about them. What we really need is a Constitutional Convention that largely involves The People and not so much our representatives. There's WAY too much power in "Washington" and not enough with The People.

MrRodgers -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 4:18:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I don't think so, when you PISS OFF The People you're just helping out your competition in the next election. Look at Anthony "Carlos Danger" Weiner. Do you think he's going to be elected to anything ever for the rest of his life? If you're the boss and the hired help tell you to go fuck yourself you fire them. Yea, but a little reminder, I've been voting out my guy in the house for over 20 years. No dice. The senators tripped over their own tongues.

DsBound -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 5:24:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: DsBound I think if you're a Congressmen you should absolutely follow and be your constituents voice. With that said, I've always felt Senator's are there, with a little more of the touchy feely... they were given 6 year terms to prove or back up beliefs where congressmen are not. There's WAY too much power in "Washington" and not enough with The People. In full agreement.

Hillwilliam -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 5:29:33 PM)
I think this thread shows that our representatives and senators actually don't give a fuck about their constituents. They only care about their donors. Corporatist whores on both sides of the aisle.

Winterapple -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 5:51:16 PM)
I would vote my conscience even if it meant the loss of my political career. Or I hope I would have the courage to vote my conscience based on the information and knowledge I had of the issue. I could only make my case as to why I voted as I did. When Harry Burn made the choice to vote in favor of women's sufferage I doubt his vote reflected the views of the majority of the voters in his district. If it had been left up to public opinion Jim Crow segregation would have lasted longer than it did. People who are elected to national office have an obligation to see the forest not just the trees that voted for them.

JeffBC -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 6:00:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam I think this thread shows that our representatives and senators actually don't give a fuck about their constituents. They only care about their donors. Corporatist whores on both sides of the aisle. ... and yet, we will continue to vote for them lest we "throw our vote away". This was one of my big realizations when I finally bit the bullet and voted green. I realized that voting either democratic or republican was automatically "throwing my vote away". So whether or not green had a good chance at winning I had at least SOME chance there whereas dem & rep gave me zero chance.

MrRodgers -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 6:13:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Winterapple I would vote my conscience even if it meant the loss of my political career. Or I hope I would have the courage to vote my conscience based on the information and knowledge I had of the issue. I could only make my case as to why I voted as I did. When Harry Burn made the choice to vote in favor of women's sufferage I doubt his vote reflected the views of the majority of the voters in his district. If it had been left up to public opinion Jim Crow segregation would have lasted longer than it did. People who are elected to national office have an obligation to see the forest not just the trees that voted for them. Not only could one say the same thing about prohibition and it wasn't until what 4/13 that Mississippi voted to approve the 13th amend. but we are talking the very franchise in that democratic republic that men and whites enjoyed, voting/slavery...that women and slaves didn't have. Voting for women suffrage and against slavery was unfinished business in the affirmation and protection of a civil right even most founding fathers knew would eventually come up, not a decision about going to war that is not a direct threat to the US.

DomKen -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 6:51:51 PM)
FR The whole point of the Republic as government is not to follow the exact will of the voters but to elect men who will, hopefully, be better informed on the subjects to be voted on and will do what is right even if it is unpopular with their voters.

Winterapple -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 7:34:44 PM)
I doubt very many if any of the founding fathers could concieve a society in which women were allowed to vote. Denying citizens their civil rights is a threat to democracy. How can you have a democracy when large segments of the population are denied the full rights of citizenship? The US hasn't engaged in a military conflict including the revolution that segments of the population haven't opposed. Going to war is never going to be a popular decision. It's up to the elected members of Congress to decide what constitutes a threat to national security. I'm not saying they should ignore what the people back home have to say. But I don't think they can make their decision wholly on the opinions of the people they represent. Everyone has a right to their opinion but that doesn't make it an informed opinion. Albert Gore Sr lost his Senate seat because of his opposition to the Vietnam war. Jeanette Rankin was the only member of Congress to vote against declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. Police had to be called to protect her from a mob. Her reason for refusing to vote for the declaration was she felt since as a woman she couldn't fight she had no right to ask anyone else to. She was also a pacifist. Needless to say it led to the end of her political career. Now you can say Rankin's vote was ridiculous especially coming after a direct attack on the nation. But you can't call her a coward. You can't accuse her of pandering to stay in office. She made a decision based on principle and was willing to fall on her sword for it. There's honor in that. There's democracy in it to.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 8:30:04 PM)
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'd vote on the fact that it's none of our fucking business.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 8:33:36 PM)
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 ? There are two thoughts on this issue. 1. Representatives were elected to represent their Districts. That is, they are, essentially, the mouthpiece for their constituents. 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. I don't know which is the proper line of thinking. DomKen clearly shows he is in the second camp. Most of the rest of the respondents thus far line up in the first camp. I will say that I would much rather my representative follow constituents or conscience based on which aligns more with my beliefs. But, I do find it difficult to criticize when that doesn't happen. Pretty much every time I've gotten into a discussion of this type, both thoughts are well represented and nothing is ever clearly determined.

BamaD -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 10:01:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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 ? There are two thoughts on this issue. 1. Representatives were elected to represent their Districts. That is, they are, essentially, the mouthpiece for their constituents. 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. I don't know which is the proper line of thinking. DomKen clearly shows he is in the second camp. Most of the rest of the respondents thus far line up in the first camp. I will say that I would much rather my representative follow constituents or conscience based on which aligns more with my beliefs. But, I do find it difficult to criticize when that doesn't happen. Pretty much every time I've gotten into a discussion of this type, both thoughts are well represented and nothing is ever clearly determined. 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

MrRodgers -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/6/2013 10:53:39 PM)
Then we are forced to once again as I always argue, go back to the meaning of words. We arrive at a republic by democratic means. Power in the hands of representatives elected by the people. (by lot, not politics) The Greeks (Athenians) came up with electing by lot, the council of 500, 50 each of the ten tribes The unique aspect of this original democracy was that there were term limits. That's right kinkroids...1 year. While Greek democracy went through much turmoil and gave us many of our words like politics, draconian, hypocrisy and the like because of the 'tyranny' and its continued unrest, several changes continued to occur but with reference to my OP the relevant aspect was: "These groups of 50 men were called prytanies. The Council could not declare war. Declaring war and vetoing recommendations of the Council were responsibilities of the Assembly of all citizens. ALL citizens. Yes, this lasted only until 338 BC when Alexander took over but is our best example. To me...this is no different.

Winterapple -> RE: The sentiments of your constituency (9/7/2013 12:14:29 AM)
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.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875