I could be wrong, but I think the general feeling towards politics in general is completely screwed up, and removed from how our country was initially setup.
If you ask someone what they think the job of a Congressman is, they will probably say something like 'to represent his constituents' or 'to do what his voters sent him there to do'.
It wasn't always this way though, and it shouldn't be this way.
I contend that the majority of Americans have no idea how to best run government. They simply don't have the knowledge or experience necessary to do so. Some people have expertise in a field, and they have greater insight into that aspect of things, but few have a good understanding of the entire process.
We shouldn't think of it as electing representatives to do what we want them to do. That's backwards. We shouldn't be telling politicians what to do. We should be voting for politicians who can make the best case for what needs to be done, and they should go to Washington to do what they think is best, not what their voters think is best(if they can bother to think about an issue during commercials while watching Dancing with the Stars or whatever is going on now).
Our country was founded specifically to avoid majority rule. We could have every American vote on every bill electronically, but that's not the way a government should be run. We're drifting closer and closer to that though, with instant polling/feedback/email and what have you.
Can't argue with much of that except in the UK the majority of the electorate would probably vote to bring back hanging but the majority of MPs consistently reject that inhumanity.
That's because the majority of MP's fear they may end up dangling from the noose John.
Anyway aren't MP's supposed to represent the interests of the electorate?
Yes, all the electorate, not just the few who elected them.
That's right John so if the Majority of the electorate voted for hanging shouldn't the politicians then implement the law?
That's the reason they don't put it to the vote isn't it? And that's the reason why we will never get a referendum on Europe either.
The job of a politician is to get elected and remain that way as long as they can. Unfortunately we think that they should be responsible in governing but the first part of getting elected overrules governing. The longer they stay in politics the more the politician guards being in office rather than governing. We are not a true democracy as our Pledge of Allegiance states we are a republic. Therefore we elect people to vote on governing as our proxy. The impetus is on us, the electorate, to elect those that represent us and monitor them as they "serve us". What I find frustrating is that when they don't "serve us" we re-elect them time and time again. Of course all of this is based upon a "free press" not a bought press to accurately report the actions and doings of "our" representatives. The current status of our government is our fault. We have ignored their waste, cheating ways and irresponsible behavior and believing the lies they espouse to be unaccountable for their short comings.
"A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman, of the next generation."
By J. F. Clarke
Well I have always held the belief that government should be for the people BY the people.
Maybe that is just me.
That means a politician should only vote the way the majority wants him to vote?
Or, should people vote for intelligent, honest men they can trust to run things well?
Should politicians take advice on monetary policy from people who waste money and live paycheck to paycheck?
Really there is a balance either way. For example if tomorrow most politicians decided rape was OK where as the vast majority of the population does not obviously it would not be ok even with you right?
By the same token if tomorrow the population decided the same thing and politicians did not I would want politicians to still stand for what's right.
As with all things there is a balance. In general I lean towards government by the people so yes the majority should be respected. There are exceptions.
I will say though very clearly that someone living paycheck to paycheck does not in any way reduce the value of their voice or opinion on how their government should be run.
I read that in the "should be" book. Unfortunately they read from the "all about me" book.
To steal. The job of a politician is to steal from people. They steal via taxation and spend it on, in modern democracies at least, buying votes. They buy votes by setting up irrational and wasteful spending projects like Obamacare and other, seemingly necessary things like roads and police; but in reality we can't tell how well our money is being spent because public organizations do not run like private ones. Unlike a private concern who goes out of business if they can't please their customers, a public one continues to get more and more of a budget every year.
by ga anderson 3 years 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 conscience, represent their electorate's desires, should they resign?I say yes.Of...
by chigoiyke 8 years ago
....soonest it will be; why did they kick out the British PM - what's his name again? Gordon Brown. I have been following the British election with some amount of attention but I still don't get why a serving PM is about get kicked out through the votes (atleast with all indices, polls and...
by Justin Earick 4 years ago
While a 28th Amendment stating that corporations are not people and money is not speech would be ideal - how about compulsory voting? What if we used the carrot approach - say increasing tax-credits for voting in primary, mid-term/off-year, and local elections? The more active the...
by spiritactor 9 years ago
I believe that, ultimately, Democracy is a gift we continually give OURSELVES. But, as a society, a nation, are we ACCEPTING and USING it?
by Susan Reid 6 years ago
Headline read: "Southern whites troubled by Romney's wealth, religion."Really? I didn't think anyone but Dems were troubled by Romney's wealth!But ok.I sort of figured the evangelicals were not as down @ Mormonism as perhaps Romney hoped. Turns out, they even believe he has more than one...
by Alternative Prime 3 years ago
Opening his mouth doesn’t appear to be a strong suit for poor ole’ backwards Jeb - Every time he yaps his trap his big “Special” brother George W looks like the intelligent sibling ~ How much trouble is that?If this numbskull wasn't so dangerous to the majority of Americans his involuntary...
Copyright © 2019 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.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|