|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 04/27/2005 : 22:02:21 [Permalink]
|
Renae, as way of an analogy, some county judges are elected. Does that mean the winning judge only needs to rule in favor of those who voted for him and rule against those who didn't? Or does the position he was elected to come with a job description that requires him to do more than that?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 22:48:23 [Permalink]
|
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but the issue y'all seem to be arguing is idealistic vs realistic.
Many are saying that elected officials should represent all the people in their respective districts.
Renae seems to be saying, "yeah, that would be nice; but a politician can only act in favor of those who make their needs known."
Thus, Renae says a politician can only represent his/her voters and special interest groups, since those who don't vote or lobby don't make their wants and needs known to the politician. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 00:19:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but the issue y'all seem to be arguing is idealistic vs realistic.
Not really. More like the difference between an elected official actually doing their job, as opposed to only doing part of it.
The insane division along party lines we have in this country today damages our democracy. The problem exists on the red AND the blue side. The party loyalists out there are nowdays refusing to even think about compromises, let alone work towards them.
The very idea that an elected official should only represent the people who actually voted for them should offend any American. It is truly incomprehensible to me how anyone can claim to respect our form of democracy and then make such statements.
The worst part is that the problem is fairly widespread. Just look at this whacko Bolton that is up for the UN position. Until recently it was prettymuch a given that he would go through the committee with a 10-8 party line vote, despite some republicans on that commitee saying on national TV that they weren't convinced he was the right guy for the job! They would have voted yes because the party leadership told them to. Odds are still that he will be voted in by the committee. Same with these whacko judges, the judiciary comittee will likely vote all of them in, and then vote to change the senate rules when the dems filibuster the vote on the extreme ones. Total party loyalty. You know there has to be atleast one republican on those comittees who is looking at those judges and saying, "WTF?". But they won't waver from the party line, because they will be replaced if they do.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 05:22:05 [Permalink]
|
Dude
I hope you can see the difference between this from Boron10
quote:
"yeah, that would be nice; but a politician can only act in favor of those who make their needs known."
and this from you
quote:
The very idea that an elected official should only represent the people who actually voted for them should offend any American.
While I totally agree with you on most of your points, I think the differences between others and Reneae right now is on semantics as Boron10 pointed out.
Here is where I may disagree though (although I'm not sure). An elected official's duty is first and foremost to the Constitution(s) (state and U.S.) he has sworn to uphold. Any ideas he proposes or pursues no matter how popular within his constituency should pass a Constitutional litmus test. Secondly I don't think an elected official should represent all of his constituency equally. Should he represent white supremacy groups or crazy militia groups as mentioned on the Guns thread? Yes he should protect the rights of these radical minorities as required by the Constitution(s) under which he serves, but he has no business representing their agenda IMO. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 06:30:51 [Permalink]
|
What part of *participative democracy* don't you understand? Railing at a system that has been entrenched for centuries will get you not very far at all. Kinda like tilting at windmills.
You guys remind me of what I call the work whiners. I work on the committee that plans staff activities. I already have a huge workload and this activity stuff adds to it--tiring but cool because I like the work. Inevitably, people will complain about the activity we plan. The whiners are the same people who are "too busy" to serve on the committee and can't be bothered even to email committee with suggestions on food or whatever.
HH, I don't think judges claim political affiliation at this level here. I've never met a judge or seen one campaign, and I don't vote for them because I don't feel I know enough about them.
Thanks Boron10, that was part of my point. I did make the point that I think politicians should vote a combination of their conscience, the party's general philosophy, and their perception of the constituents' wishes. I do admit a general annoyance with those who offer complaint without solution, and the only solution I've read here is neither realistic nor feasible (abolish special interests and the parties.)
Dave, over and over you have offered the "parties don't represent the majority" line without any proof. If you follow the third-third-third (1/3 of Americans are Democrats, 1/3 Republicans, and 1/3 Independents), then your theory is just false. I've read most independents generally vote along with one party but claim to be independents anyway.
It's my *perception* that the Republican politicans are currently out of touch with their party (the Schiavo case mentioned before being a good example.) Come next election, this may bite them in the behind and the Republican voters may chuck them out as I suspect they will. But if they don't, can they continue to blame the party for not representing them?
I will continue to be a loyal Democrat, continue to be involved in the process, continue to stand for what I believe in, and continue to believe in American democracy. It's the best way to help shape the world. And it will likely be my voice that gets heard, not yours.
And now, I'm really done with this thread.  |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 06:54:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Renea:
I do admit a general annoyance with those who offer complaint without solution, and the only solution I've read here is neither realistic nor feasible (abolish special interests and the parties.)
Well, actually, it wouldn't be that difficult to not vote for a person who is not serving me (one the constituents) regardless of party affiliation. If we all did that, I do believe we would be better served. (Have I said this before?) Is it all that unrealistic to suggest that we should not be so loyal to the party that we will vote for any ‘ol dickhead the party wants us too?
And just what would be the parties motivation to serve me if they think that they think that they have a lock on my vote?
As a pretty loyal Democrat, there is no way I want my party to think that they don't have to earn my vote. I believe I am serving the party by turning on them from time to time…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 08:00:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I did make the point that I think politicians should vote a combination of their conscience, the party's general philosophy, and their perception of the constituents' wishes.
Yes, you did, and you failed to respond to any counter-point on this, like what the priorities should be.quote:
I do admit a general annoyance with those who offer complaint without solution, and the only solution I've read here is neither realistic nor feasible (abolish special interests and the parties.)
Why are these not realistic or feasible? Do you not realize that the Republicans are looking to add much regulation to 527s? It was on NPR this morning. And the more we can punish party politics as harmful to democracy, the more likely it'll be that independents get into office. We can get rid of the parties, it'll just take time.quote:
Dave, over and over you have offered the "parties don't represent the majority" line without any proof. If you follow the third-third-third (1/3 of Americans are Democrats, 1/3 Republicans, and 1/3 Independents), then your theory is just false.
You just offered the proof. The Democratic Party does not represent a majority of the citizens. The Republican Party does not represent a majority of the citizens. By your own numbers, 2/3rds of the citizens are not Democrats.quote:
I've read most independents generally vote along with one party but claim to be independents anyway.
Irrelevant. The party members who make choices about who will not run for President (and other offices) do not represent any sort of majority.quote:
It's my *perception* that the Republican politicans are currently out of touch with their party (the Schiavo case mentioned before being a good example.)
An excellent example, since the Senate passed the Schiavo bill 98-0 (if I remember correctly), showing just how out-of-touch the Democrats are, as well.quote:
Come next election, this may bite them in the behind and the Republican voters may chuck them out as I suspect they will. But if they don't, can they continue to blame the party for not representing them?
If the replacements offered by the party are no better than those in there now, then voting people out of office will be ineffectual. If, however, people get voted out of office by voters who jump party for a candidate not foisted on them, that'd be good. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 10:28:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What part of *participative democracy* don't you understand? Railing at a system that has been entrenched for centuries will get you not very far at all. Kinda like tilting at windmills.
I'm not "railing at the system", I'm railing at the assholes who are fucking up the system.
And where do you get the idea that 527's, soft money, and political parties have been "entrenched" for centuries? You are just making stuff up now. Go google for "Whig" and "Unionist".
quote:
You guys remind me of what I call the work whiners. I work on the committee that plans staff activities. I already have a huge workload and this activity stuff adds to it--tiring but cool because I like the work. Inevitably, people will complain about the activity we plan. The whiners are the same people who are "too busy" to serve on the committee and can't be bothered even to email committee with suggestions on food or whatever.
Nice. That is a FINE example of an actual ad-hom fallacy. Because somebody disagrees with you, they must be lazy and apathetic.
If that is the best argument you can offer in defense of 527's and extreme partisanship....
quote:
Posted by bloody peasant:
Dude
I hope you can see the difference between this from Boron10
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"yeah, that would be nice; but a politician can only act in favor of those who make their needs known."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and this from you
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The very idea that an elected official should only represent the people who actually voted for them should offend any American.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference? Sure. He is saying one thing, and I am saying another.
Lets break it down to one simple sentence:
ELECTED OFFICIALS have a responsibility to all of their constituents, regardless of the political orientation of those constituents.
The very idea that somehow our elected officials can just ignore anyone who didn't vote for them is insane. They have a responsibility to all the people they represent.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 10:53:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ELECTED OFFICIALS have a responsibility to all of their constituents, regardless of the political orientation of those constituents.
The very idea that somehow our elected officials can just ignore anyone who didn't vote for them is insane. They have a responsibility to all the people they represent.
Define what you mean by "responsibility". What is their responsibility? Surely its not to represent the views of every one of their constituents as that would lead to absurd and even opposite tendencies. I agree they should listen to all of their constituents and maybe that's what you mean by "responsibility".
Personally I find their first task to be to the Constitution(s) under which they serve. This includes protecting the minority from the majority. Beyond that I'm not sure what their responsibilities are.
Do they represent the majority?
Do they try and compromise on views between the majority and minority groups?
Do they do what they think is best?
I am not sure how any person can represent more than one view on an issue. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 11:08:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
Personally I find their first task to be to the Constitution(s) under which they serve. This includes protecting the minority from the majority.
Interesting. So included in their responsibilities is making sure that their political opponents are not abused. After all, the people in office represent "the majority," and those who voted for the other guy are a minority (one of many).
In such a case, why would any die-hard Republican (for instance), want to be elected to an office from which part of his duty would be to make sure that he doesn't step on the toes of Democrats? How wonderfully self-contradictory, and antithetical to the idea that a politician's primary allegiance should be to his party line.
In other words, things are rarely as simple as they seem. The idea that politicians owe "nothing" to non-voters or their opponents is one of those things. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 11:42:12 [Permalink]
|
Just for shits and giggles I thought I would make my position clear. I am not against political parties. There is strength in numbers and so it seems natural to me that coalitions have formed with at least some overlapping concerns creating a larger voice and therefore more political clout. I do not wish the demise political parties.
What I would like to see is more of them.
At the moment the Democratic Party is closest to where I am politically. And while I might not be in agreement with all the party stands for, for the most part, for me, it is the best game in town if I want to further an agenda that I believe in.
The problem I have is how the parties operate. The two main parties have become too big. So big that the parties have a virtual lock on policy. And while they may differ on (some) issues, they are too much the same in too many ways, especially where it comes to who will influence them and how that influence can be had. Neither party is really for campaign finance reform because it would force them to earn votes in a very real way.
The solution, it seems to me, is not the elimination of parties but serious campaign reform which could lead to the existence of new and viable parties giving we voters more choices. New coalitions could be formed. That in turn would force the bigger parties to sit up and listen if they ever want to get anyone elected. Or it would lead be their demise. I don't really care as long as there is a party that best represents what I think should be done. And that party has an equal chance, at least on paper, to win an election
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 13:11:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
Personally I find their first task to be to the Constitution(s) under which they serve. This includes protecting the minority from the majority.
Interesting. So included in their responsibilities is making sure that their political opponents are not abused. After all, the people in office represent "the majority," and those who voted for the other guy are a minority (one of many).
In such a case, why would any die-hard Republican (for instance), want to be elected to an office from which part of his duty would be to make sure that he doesn't step on the toes of Democrats? How wonderfully self-contradictory, and antithetical to the idea that a politician's primary allegiance should be to his party line.
In other words, things are rarely as simple as they seem. The idea that politicians owe "nothing" to non-voters or their opponents is one of those things.
Maybe I should have been clearer. I definitely don't mean protecting from stepping on the toes of the loser. I do mean protecting the rights guaranteed in the Constitution(s) they serve under. I'm also definitely not saying this is how things are, I'm saying this is how I expect any representative I elect to serve. Beyond that I'm not sure how I expect them to behave. I would expect them to pay the most attention to the majority, but also apply reason and logic to their decisions. I also would expect them to apply a Constitutional litmus test to anything they foster. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 13:37:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
Maybe I should have been clearer. I definitely don't mean protecting from stepping on the toes of the loser. I do mean protecting the rights guaranteed in the Constitution(s) they serve under.
No, that's exactly what I was thinking. (Consider my statement to have implied "stepping on Constitutional toes.") Republicans should be working to dismantle the Patriot Act as depriving people of their Constitutional privacy, and Democrats should be defending the 2nd Amendment. And both parties should be demanding hearings filled with behaviourists and psychologists to determine whether or not gay people should be legally granted "protected group" status, instead of just "voting their conscience" regarding things like the Defense of Marriage Act.quote:
I'm also definitely not saying this is how things are, I'm saying this is how I expect any representative I elect to serve.
Right. How things are is not necessarily how things should be (and vice versa).quote:
Beyond that I'm not sure how I expect them to behave. I would expect them to pay the most attention to the majority, but also apply reason and logic to their decisions. I also would expect them to apply a Constitutional litmus test to anything they foster.
Right. Reason and logic make for a representative, instead of just a leader of a mob. Interestingly, "party ideals" don't seem to make an appearance in your description, either. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 14:02:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Republicans should be working to dismantle the Patriot Act as depriving people of their Constitutional privacy, and Democrats should be defending the 2nd Amendment. And both parties should be demanding hearings filled with behaviourists and psychologists to determine whether or not gay people should be legally granted "protected group" status, instead of just "voting their conscience" regarding things like the Defense of Marriage Act.
Wow you mean they actually uphold their oaths of office!! Wow what a novel idea. Where can I go and live in such a place :(
Yes I agree I am speaking how I think things should be, not how they are.
Yes party ideas do not because even if the majority elected a democratic rep, they (the electing majority) may have a different opinion on an issue than the "party". Thus it is IMO the job of the rep to represent his constituency (using those principles I outlined above) and go against his own party.
Again I love to dream :< |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 16:49:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Define what you mean by "responsibility". What is their responsibility? Surely its not to represent the views of every one of their constituents as that would lead to absurd and even opposite tendencies. I agree they should listen to all of their constituents and maybe that's what you mean by "responsibility".
Their responsibility varies with each issue.
They are not living up to their responsibility if they can, as has been suggested, only represent the people who voted for them.
But they definitely have a responsibility to be aware of issues that effect their constituents.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
