If a representative is an advocate for another person's policy or purpose, and non-independent members of a parliament represent a political party, do they in fact represent their constituents?
If the majority of politicians are 'straight' middle-class, middle-aged, and married how can they represent the interests of single, young, straight, gay, and lesbian constituents?
Or is it the case that politicians steal the voice of their constituents, ignore the needs and concerns of the majority, and impose their own point-of-view?
politics is one of the topics that I don't want to talk about, I have had enough from politicians who promised lots of things and nothing or minimal is done about their sweet words of promises
Surely, your implicit withdrawal from politics simply allows politicians to continuing ignoring you and your interests?
Surely one way to excise the political rot is to engage in public debate, to be an active agent of social change?
It is very simple. You stop, they win. Or you can apply to it, they have their way.
The foundation of Democracy in the United States is our Constitution.
The Constitution has been under attack by political parties to want changes that would require congress and the states to ratify. The 3 branches of our government ,Legislative, Judicial and Executive, create a system with checks and balances.
The system protects minorities as well as majorities in making laws and legislation.
Majority in most cases rules when it comes to voting. Certain types of legislation require a 2/3s vote on important legislation to pass.
The people elect their representatives, sometime the elected representatives do not do the work of the people.
Our politicians proclaim '' We are a nation of the rule of law ''.They sometimes forget that the law includes all citizens without exclusions.
''Equal Justice for all '' not '' Social Justice for all''
Yes, in theory, and via rhetoric, what you say is the ideal of representative democracy.
however, I would say governments now conceive themselves in the Fascist mode - that is, as a corporate body.
The person who first put this political notion into practice, in the 1920s-40s, was Benito Mussolini the leader of the Fascist Party of Italy.
The result being that the different interests of the various communities that make-up a pluralist society become conflated as one grand narrative 'We are one nation'.
Thus, IMO, our politicians ignore the various class interests that exist in Western societies... And that is not representative democracy; representative democracy acknowledges the different interests of the various social classes that make a society. Therefore, while our political system espouses the rhetoric of representative democracy, in practice we have a very different form of politics...
Is this a reasonable claim?
Politicians these days generally do not represent the majority view of their constituents. They are influenced too greatly by lobbyists and special interest groups that scream at them. Where have all the statesmen gone? What happened to the citizen that served for a short time and then went back home to the farm or business? It should be a duty to serve for a time and then let someone else do it. Not make a life long career out of it.
i recognize the point you make about career-politicians, but do not understand, in our modern world of diverse communities, how 'duty to serve for a [limited] time' will overcome the lack of genuine representation.
If someone is duty-bound to serve for a term then perhaps that person will use that time to advance their own interests?
Perhaps the problem lies in the vision of representative democracy? The origins of the concept lie in the sharing of power between two social classes, and, what is more, to the exclusion of all other social classes. The first theorists of the concept did not include women, children, minorities, slaves, people without property...they had a very exclusive vision.
Would this change if we compelled people to serve a term in politics? And how would we decide who serves in what the upper and lower houses?
Perhaps, we need to rethink the whole concept?
by GA Anderson12 months ago
Should a Congressman Only Stand For Moral and Sensible Actions... that benefit all U.S. citizens?Or should they stand for the desired actions of their electors?I think it is the latter.If they cannot, in good...
by Holle Abee6 years ago
I've been reading some of the polls on support for the healthcare bill. Support is at a new low, with only 38% supporting the bill. 56% oppose the bill. My question is this: Should representatives vote the way their...
by My Esoteric4 months ago
In both the Federalist Papers AND the Constitutional Convention, it is extremely clear the distaste most of those involved in creating today's America had for democracy, which they saw as mob rule which allows...
by ahorseback7 months ago
You wanted Christians and lions in the coliseum , you got it . You want a circus in the political debates , there you go ! The last election amounted to a ...
by Aaron Babb5 years ago
I feel that what our form of government promotes isn't the best candidate willing to make tough, unpopular decisions, but rather to elect the most charismatic likable person that would die before they purposely do...
by uszealot6 years ago
Take the Hill!"Evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us," ---John Galt (Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged)The evil here is the self-serving career politicians on Capitol Hill and in...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.