RE: "Leaders"

RE: "Leaders" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

popeye1250 -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 1:57:34 PM)
Crappy, I was talking more in a "Leadership" vein, "The President" is certainly a leadership position while I don't think that's true or should be true of congressmen or senators who are elected to do our bidding.

SirKenin -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 2:01:02 PM)
They are NOT elected to do your bidding. Geez. They are primarily elected on the premise that their ideals closely match the interests of the majority of the constituents and that they will act on those ideals as promised. Little bitchfests like yours give them additional insight.

IronBear -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 2:04:03 PM)
The sad thing from an independent and non involved view, is the US does not have mandatory voting. Thus a few can votes and elect people to Congress or Presidency with a landslide where if all votes the elected members may not have got in to start with.... Not a criticism just an conversation.... If the people, all the people want to have government for the people by the people, those with a social conscience need to be getting out and advocating more folks vote... Not my words but one by some one here in CM made it during a similar discussion 12 months ago.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 2:15:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Just got off the phone a while ago with one of my congressman's staffers talking about an issue. She listened to me and then told me; "Well the congressman thinks......." I cut her off in mid sentence and explained to her that we don't send people to Washington to vote "their" conscience or to do what "they" think is right but to vote the way that WE (The People) want them to vote! (Summertime "Interns!") Why do congressmen and senators who go to Washington to "serve the People" think they are somehow in positions of "Leadership?" They're not part of the Management, they're the Hired Help! I vote for people to go to Washington, D.C. to do what I fucking TELL them to do. If they don't like it they need to resign. Your thoughts please. Regardless of how anybody thinks it should be run, it obviously doesn't run that way. I mean if all an elected official was going to do was take a pole of which way he should vote on everything based on his districts will, then why would you need parties? It's obvious a republican will almost always vote differently than a democrat. So, it has little to do with the population, but rather that man/womans philosphy on how things should be run. Why would you need elections at all?,if they were there to directly reflect the will of their district. If all they were doing was passing along the will of those they represent, those things wouldn't be necessary. No, in reality, you vote for the guy that best matches your values, because he's going to vote the way HE thinks he should, not you.

LadyEllen -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 2:19:00 PM)
Hi I dont know about the US, but since its democracy is an offshoot of ours in the UK I guess it might be similar at least in this one respect - we do not have true democracy, we have representative democracy. The guy/gal we elect is not expected to, and could not practically, vote in the way that all of his/her electors would want him/her to. We elect these people as our representatives, placing in them a trust to vote according to their consience, on the grounds that we have inspected all the candidates and trust our chosen candidate to be suitable for this task by reference to his/her character. Representatives also have to represent those who didnt vote for them, and those who didnt vote at all. They must undertake to serve all of their electors - this is why it would be impossible for them to vote in the way all their electors would like. Thus the representative votes in the way he/she feels is best, without referral to electors. The involvement of political parties and that our representatives are tied into them is another unhelpful factor in this of course, as is the undue influence of big business. Consience too often comes second best to the party line and the possibility of funding. What to do? Well in the past it was impossible given the size of our nation states to make democracy work on any basis other than representation. For us to emulate the ancient Greek democracy and an entire nation to meet and vote on everything would have been totally impractical. However, modern technology does now make such mass participation possible - the question is why we dont have that, ignoring the security problems the politicians give us (if they can secure the CIA, FBI, MI5 and MI6 systems, they could secure a democratic IT system surely?) The reason we are stuck with representative democracy is simple - because we peasants are prone to be revolting, and might not vote for wars on Iraq that our leaders would like to make for example. We the people cannot be trusted to rule ourselves and nor do we have the wherewithal to make the "right" decisions. At the same time, most politicians would be out of a job overnight should we switch to mass democracy - so that is not going to happen! And then, how could big business have any influence if it had to pay for all of our votes rather than just those of a majority party? We the people meanwhile, can be as angry as we like about all of this for the three or four years between elections - just as long as we are calmed in time to vote again at the next election with promises that "we will listen this time, honestly". E

pahunkboy -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 2:35:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear The sad thing from an independent and non involved view, is the US does not have mandatory voting. Thus a few can votes and elect people to Congress or Presidency with a landslide where if all votes the elected members may not have got in to start with.... Not a criticism just an conversation.... If the people, all the people want to have government for the people by the people, those with a social conscience need to be getting out and advocating more folks vote... Not my words but one by some one here in CM made it during a similar discussion 12 months ago. IMO- an election should have a type of quorumn to be valid. so in a sense i agree with you.

Dtesmoac -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 2:36:58 PM)
Lady .. I like a lot of your point but also remember if you had direct "peasent control of politics sometimes the massive over reaction to something would allow a fanatical response to quickly go through. With the two house system and endless discussing of issues, on the whole you tend to get more moderate thought through legislation. One of the best things about the way the House of Lords in the UK used to work was that it could ammend or slow down legislation but mot make legislation and that many of those involved had no reason to just please the mob or their "party affiliation". As an alternative - randomly select 1600 citizens, have an ellection to chose 800 of them and then they form the parliament and elct within 5 days a President / PM or one is selected at Random, and there you have your government..........I can see a few problems but it might be fun to try it.....!

pahunkboy -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 2:40:24 PM)
I came across as a bitch. Im sorry to the board. a good idea will stand on its own weight. if everyone has a tidy yard- it makes for a tidy neighborhood. it isnt my intention to begin a bitchfest. recall the man in tennieman square that stood the row of tanks. i am open to LEARN from whomever - how i can do my part to make my backyard- [the US] a better place. the average joe built this world. constrcutive particiaption is what we need. and alot of it. the OP phoned congress. i can count on 1 hand folks i know real time that have done so.

IronBear -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 2:42:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear The sad thing from an independent and non involved view, is the US does not have mandatory voting. Thus a few can votes and elect people to Congress or Presidency with a landslide where if all votes the elected members may not have got in to start with.... Not a criticism just an conversation.... If the people, all the people want to have government for the people by the people, those with a social conscience need to be getting out and advocating more folks vote... Not my words but one by some one here in CM made it during a similar discussion 12 months ago. IMO- an election should have a type of quorumn to be valid. so in a sense i agree with you. What can I say except that it works here in Australia. All elections, State and federal othere than local Counsel Elections are Mandatory for all Australians over the age of 18.... WE consider it a right to be able to vote not a privilage.. Just remember that since your Voting is voluntary the right to vote can be removed easily and who would argue seeing that so many dont bother and they certainly won't miss it.... We always miss the things taken from us if we use them. Things we forget about or ignor never seem so important..

pahunkboy -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 2:44:46 PM)
IB- that would defray some of the "lesser of 2 evils" mode. im mad that campaigne finance reform went nowhere. everything is bought here. sorta like whoredom. yikes.

pahunkboy -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 2:46:50 PM)
one must also factor in misleading bills. the title sounds great- but the actual bill is the opposite of the title. we have alot of that lately- past 25 yrs.

Dtesmoac -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 2:51:32 PM)
Provided there was a "non of the useless buggers I want a retrial" box also on the paper I would agree.

IronBear -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 3:02:32 PM)
There is always a few odd balls in the mix. We have pretty strict rules of how much cash can be got from businesses etc and ro run for a seat isn't prohibitive.. You'll usually find an independent running on a Pro Marijuana Ticket or two. Saw one last elections who was running on a "Allow public Nudity bill too".. Probaqbly have a "Pro BDSM and legalising Consensual Slavery Bill" some time.. WE have to vote but you can always scribble "get fucked" accross the ballot paper.... No system is perfect but some things can always be improved..

ScooterTrash -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 3:03:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Just got off the phone a while ago with one of my congressman's staffers talking about an issue. She listened to me and then told me; "Well the congressman thinks......." I cut her off in mid sentence and explained to her that we don't send people to Washington to vote "their" conscience or to do what "they" think is right but to vote the way that WE (The People) want them to vote! (Summertime "Interns!") Why do congressmen and senators who go to Washington to "serve the People" think they are somehow in positions of "Leadership?" They're not part of the Management, they're the Hired Help! I vote for people to go to Washington, D.C. to do what I fucking TELL them to do. If they don't like it they need to resign. Your thoughts please. In a nutshell popeye, you are pretty much on target, no matter what the "do what you want to me" group says. The house of representatives was intended to do just that, represent the ideals and beliefs of their constituency. Likewise, Senators down to lowly city officials should be obliged to follow the same suit. What seems to have happened, is that the office itself has become its own entity and the thoughts of the people don't count anymore. You can talk until you are blue in the face about electing a public servant whose ideals most closely align with yours, but that is impossible to do, since there are more topics to align with than one person would most likely be on the same track with, as you. If I am for abortion, amnesty or same sex marraiges and my elected official is against these, I should still not be stuck. A representative that is worth his salt should poll, canvas the communities and have public forums where he/she can get a grasp of what his constituents feelings are on the subject, then not vote "his" conscience, but vote for what the majority of the people want. I want Government representatives that are obedient and serve the people they represent, not someone who can talk a line of crap at election time and then vote for what they think or want. Their vote in my mind counts as "one", just as mine does. What has happened though, primarily because of the mindset of the folks that just take what they are handed out, is that the candidate with the most charisma, money and the right look, are being elected and put into a position where they think they get to make decisions based on what "they" think and to hell with the general public that put them there. Sure, we can fire them, by not voting for them the next time, but until the entire mindset is changed, we will just get another person in the job that will tend to their own agenda and not ours. If someone came right out and said I have no particular stand on the important issues, but am willing to vote the will of the people, he'd get my vote in a heartbeat. While we are waiting for that to happen, all you can do is make calls, write letters and support organizations that have enough pull to influence the lobbyist.

Dtesmoac -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 3:27:14 PM)
Perhaps another way to achieve greater accountability of individual representatives would be a poll / referendum each year on "Is your representive being effective" and if there was over a 65% No vote then there automatically had to be a relection campaigne for that particular seat. It wpuld keep them on their toes, make them communicate and listen to the whole electorate more often. The whole question of how could you reform the existing system but still keep it workable is quite interesting

CrappyDom -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 3:42:27 PM)
America gets the quality of leadership we deserve. People were dumb enough to believe that Bush, with a 1,000+ acre ranch, who spent his boyhood being buggered by Saudi princes, and then drinking and snorting cocain when other men were fighting and dying in Vietnam is somehow a "man of the people". We vote for people who tell us that they have simple solutions to complex problems. We watch campaign ad after campaign ad on primetime TV from someone who claims they aren't owned by big business. We believe someone who says we can cut taxes and provide more services. We believe someone who says one thing and does another. Nope, America gets the exact sort of leadership we deserve.

MizSuz -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 3:45:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slave2uX i know little about america as well (just like SirKenin) but i do understand democracy. in practical terms there is no way an elected representative can fairly represent the views of each and everyone one of their constituents. at some point we expect them to thnk and act on our behalf and we cast our vote for the person we expect will most likely carry out their role in a way we would want them to. Beautifully put. I've long maintained that the "democracy" bill of goods I've been sold my entire life is a fallacy. This is a republic. It's a democratic republic, but its foundation is that of a republic. I think it's a flawed system. Get 10 people in the same room and ask them their opinions on 5 items. What do you suppose are the chances that everyone will agree on all points? Not likely. It's impossible for one representative to vote for his entire constituency. The notion that he/she will vote for the majority may be slightly higher, but I think only slightly higher. To my mind a democracy would encompass a town hall style of government. Everyone gets a vote on every issue (hopefully we'd learn a big lesson regarding the media's ability to manipulate us, too). In that situation I see a public servant as someone who would gather information and take it to its constituency for consideration. I recognize the logistical issues (we're a big country with a lot of people) and don't have a good plan to suggest, though. To some degree I'm a product of my up-bringing and to that end I think I'd prefer to live in a democracy over a democratic republic (it's the bill of goods I've been sold all my life); but I'd be lying if I said the thought of everyone in the U.S. getting a vote on every issue doesn't scare the hell out of me. I think inevitably we'd develop more of a social conscience and be, en masse, less likely to have knee jerk reactions - but I think it would take some internal upheaval to reach that point. Still, I'd like to live in a democracy before I die. To the OP - I agree with you in spirit and appreciate your tenacity, I also agree with you that elected officials are not "leaders" but more rightly should be "servants". I just don't think they can accomplish that under the current system (not even taking into consideration all the politicing, power struggling and bartering that goes on behind the scenes). Don't hate the player, hate the game.

IronBear -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 3:46:06 PM)
I was thinking long those line while having a smoke and coffee.. I honestly don't know. Were it the Australian System, I might have a look provided I have access to the best legal brains in the country specializing in Parlementary and Constitutional Law and other Professionals to look at the financial aspects. But for the US system, It would talke me a couple of years or more to studt the US Parlementary System, and in reality if I wouldn't consider myself qualified or competent to do aythig with the Australian Government System I'm far less qualified and competent to do a thing with the US System.. What I can say is that if sufficient people from all walks of life were to write liusts of things which they see as inadequate and needed changing as well as their iudeas of how they would like to see a Government to be and work, it would go a long way to building a model using as many of this input as possible even though it may not be workable it does give a basis from which to start... Perhaps adding to this going back to the declaration of independence and both the letter as well as the spirit of it should be an excelent starting point....

Level -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 4:14:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac In reply to your original point popeye the correct course of action following your logic would be for you to phone up a senator that already relfects your exact view point and tell him the F#K to vote the way you want and then to pomote to other voters that don't agree with your vote but also have the right to vote in the US to pick up the phone and also tell a like minded politician who they agree with to vote the F#K way he already was. That way your vote counts and they (the senator you choose to phone) always do what you want. Of course the whole point behind democrasies is that no-one gets exactly what they want but everyone gets something and no-one gets totally shitted on. Funny how I can spell shit but not f#k I think this expalins my logic.....if not I'll try again. It's F....u.....c......k..... [:D]*

Dtesmoac -> RE: "Leaders" (8/2/2006 4:15:47 PM)
It sounds like a wonderful idea when people agree with your opinions but just suppose it was applied globally and all people globally had the same say and it was applied to one of the issues of the moment like Iraq, Lebanon, Global Warming, Global Free Trade, Stoning Adulterors, Gay rights etc. Would you continue to support it if on each issue the uneducated, ignorant world masses out voted the educated, rich westerners. China and India alone could probably push through the "only bicycles to be used in America" bill. Freedom, One Person One vote etc always seems to stop just at the edge of a persons back yard. It still suprises me how often I speak with people that have vehement views that I find almost impossible to imagine but which they consider totally reasonable. Some examples that I can not understand but which others totally believe are - carrying a hand gun around, that sinners will go to hell, extereme animal rights, wanting to go out and shoot bambi for sport, watching baseball, etc.... As always perhaps I am being ridiculous and taking the examples to far but my point is that often the mob / masses etc are wrong and eventually they realise it, but if you allowed them to act on everything they may realise they were wrong, to late. Slavery was once considered to be completely acceptable but now is not......ok that was the wrong example for this web page but you know what I mean.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125