PDA

View Full Version : Elections TRUE representative democracy - new political oversight org


AustinChief
03-25-2010, 03:55 PM
OK... just to start out... this does not exist yet... this is a WHAT IF....

Let's say an organisation(call it True Representation Underway... TRU) is started that endorsed Congressional candidates ONLY IF they agreed to vote according to the will of THERE constituents. (ANY candidate can get endorsed regardless of affiliation... so you could have a primary election with 5 guys endorsed and the final election with both candidates endorsed) These candidates would agree that they would vote according to an index set by a number of polls in there represented area... if the polls were within a certain margin of error.. the candidates own judgement comes to play. A candidate that votes AGAINST the prevailing opinion would be required to CHANGE his constituants minds within 6 weeks or would be in violation of his pact and the TRU would then actively make this known and campaign against him at reelection time.

Would any of you be more or less likely to vote for the candidate? Or would you simply vote as always? In the primaries would it matter more to you? Would it only come to play AFTER a rep failed to vote with his people?

orange
03-25-2010, 03:59 PM
I would absolutely vote against such a candidate.

Pollsters are unelected, unaccountable, unrepresentative, and in many cases their bias is quite apparent.

If we had a system where actual voters voted for national legislation (like referenda), I could go for that.

AustinChief
03-25-2010, 04:01 PM
I would absolutely vote against such a candidate.

Pollsters are unelected, unaccountable, unrepresentative, and in many cases their bias is quite apparent.

If we had a system where actual voters voted for national legislation (like referenda), I could go for that.

Which is why I said it would be an index of independent polls... for arguments sake... imagine the POLLS are unbiased and accurate... just leave THAT out of the argument.. ok?

Jenson71
03-25-2010, 04:01 PM
I would simply vote as always.

What if I disagreed with the majority in my district? Then I'd want MY representative to vote against their collective wishes.

Would the oversight organization be useful? In a way, maybe. But not really needed.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2010, 04:02 PM
Which is why I said it would be an index of independent polls... for arguments sake... imagine the POLLS are unbiased and accurate... just leave THAT out of the argument.. ok?

Mob rule. Awesome.

AustinChief
03-25-2010, 04:04 PM
I would simply vote as always.

What if I disagreed with the majority in my district? Then I'd want MY representative to vote against their collective wishes.

if you disagreed with the majority... it's unlikely YOUR candidate got elected...

I doubt this would make a D vote R or vice versa... this is more in regards to independent voters and ESPECIALLY candidates in the primary... AND candidates up for re-election

orange
03-25-2010, 04:04 PM
Which is why I said it would be an index of independent polls... for arguments sake... imagine the POLLS are unbiased and accurate... just leave THAT out of the argument.. ok?

I would still disagree. They are REPRESENTATIVES. If there is to be a switch to full democracy, that's a much bigger change and I wouldn't have a position at this time. I would have to hear a lot more debate.

But for individual candidates to pledge to abrogate their responsibilities under the current system - I would very much oppose.

AustinChief
03-25-2010, 04:05 PM
Mob rule. Awesome.

so you would rather have an oligarchy... awesome! Do our rulers have to be white men with an IQ over 140? Wouldn't it be easier to just take away voting rights for the dumb folk?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2010, 04:06 PM
if you disagreed with the majority... it's unlikely YOUR candidate got elected...

I doubt this would make a D vote R or vice versa... this is more in regards to independent voters and ESPECIALLY candidates in the primary... AND candidates up for re-election

Just read this

http://www.effortlessenterprises.com/bwp/plato_republic.gif

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2010, 04:07 PM
so you would rather have an oligarchy... awesome! Do our rulers have to be white men with an IQ over 140? Wouldn't it be easier to just take away voting rights for the dumb folk?

Based on the stupidity of this thread, I might support taking away your voting rights.

Personally, I'd rather have a Philosopher King, but the risk is too fucking great of getting a despot.

I'll settle for a representative democracy where elections are publicly funded.

AustinChief
03-25-2010, 04:08 PM
I would still disagree. They are REPRESENTATIVES. If there is to be a switch to full democracy, that's a much bigger change and I wouldn't have a position at this time. I would have to hear a lot more debate.

But for individual candidates to pledge to abrogate their responsibilities under the current system - I would very much oppose.

So, you think they "know what's best" then? They have better/more access to information than the general public?

I don't want a DIRECT democracy because there is no stop gap for abuse... but I also think our "representative" system lacks accountability... and the public too soon forget when their "representatives" fail to properly do so.

AustinChief
03-25-2010, 04:09 PM
Just read this

http://www.effortlessenterprises.com/bwp/plato_republic.gif
I'm betting I read that quite a few years before you and quite a few times more... please check the condescention at the door.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2010, 04:10 PM
I'm betting I read that quite a few years before you and qquite a few times more... please check the condescention at the door.

When you read it and how many times is irrelevant if you can't even understand the basic premises of the text, as well as the plusses and minuses of each system of rule.

orange
03-25-2010, 04:10 PM
So, you think they "know what's best" then? They have better/more access to information than the general public?


No, but I expect them to do their best. To exercise their own judgement. And I fully expect them to disagree with the majority sometimes.

AustinChief
03-25-2010, 04:11 PM
Based on the stupidity of this thread, I might support taking away your voting rights.

Personally, I'd rather have a Philosopher King, but the risk is too ****ing great of getting a despot.

I'll settle for a representative democracy where elections are publicly funded.
Yes, a philospher king works great, until he dies and is replaced with a despot or anarchy...

I also agree with publicly funded elections... but that doesn't address abuse once in office...

I am not advocating a change to govt AT ALL... this would be a private oversite org... nothing more. They would endorse candidates just like the NRA or NOW does.

AustinChief
03-25-2010, 04:12 PM
When you read it and how many times is irrelevant if you can't even understand the basic premises of the text, as well as the plusses and minuses of each system of rule.

Again, I'm gonna go with my reading comprehension skills over yours here... since you obviously didn't get what I was proposing in the OP.

Not once was a structural change in govt proposed. (although I will go with your suggestion for public funding for elections.. always have supported that change)

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2010, 04:13 PM
Yes, a philospher king works great, until he dies and is replaced with a despot or anarchy...

I also agree with publicly funded elections... but that doesn't address abuse once in office...

I am not advocating a change to govt AT ALL... this would be a private oversite org... nothing more. They would endorse candidates just like the NRA or NOW does.

They already have those.

Check out the Liberal and Conservative voting indices.

Or any one of the numerous political quizzes that not only match up your beliefs with candidates, but give a full list of things they both voted and campaigned for.

People who don't want to find outside information are not going to seek it. It's already out there.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2010, 04:14 PM
Again, I'm gonna go with my reading comprehension skills over yours here... since you obviously didn't get what I was proposing in the OP.

You might want to learn to understand the predictable outcomes of your decisions.

RJ
03-25-2010, 04:16 PM
When I vote for a candidate, I understand that I am trusting them to vote how they think is best, even if it doesn't always jibe with what most constituents want - though most likely it usually does. Otherwise, why elect them? We could just make all decisions with polling data.

AustinChief
03-25-2010, 04:17 PM
No, but I expect them to do their best. To exercise their own judgement. And I fully expect them to disagree with the majority sometimes.

And as I stated in the OP, if they disagree and then can SHOW WHY and convince them of the merit for the vote... no problem, if NOT they would lose the endorsement and the org. would actively publicize it.

My poblem is a simple one... reps too often vote due to corruption under the table, corruption over the table, or along party lines for future favors(also corrupt)... the feeling is that if you elected a republican... he can ignore his constituants after being elected and vote straight party lines because "hey, YOU elected me as a Republican, right?"

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2010, 04:18 PM
And as I stated in the OP, if they disagree and then can SHOW WHY and convince them of the merit for the vote... no problem, if NOT they would lose the endorsement and the org. would actively publicize it.

My poblem is a simple one... reps too often vote due to corruption under the table, corruption over the table, or along party lines for future favors(also corrupt)... the feeling is that if you elected a republican... he can ignore his constituants after being elected and vote straight party lines because "hey, YOU elected me as a Republican, right?"

And then when constituents don't get pork because he's devalued in his party caucuses because of his "maverick" approach, they'll vote his bitch ass right out on the street.

AustinChief
03-25-2010, 04:18 PM
They already have those.

Check out the Liberal and Conservative voting indices.

Or any one of the numerous political quizzes that not only match up your beliefs with candidates, but give a full list of things they both voted and campaigned for.

People who don't want to find outside information are not going to seek it. It's already out there.

The problem is that I have not seen any index that is broken down by a districts wants and the candidates votes...

That is all I would like to see... and I don't believe it exists.

AustinChief
03-25-2010, 04:19 PM
And then when constituents don't get pork because he's devalued in his party caucuses because of his "maverick" approach, they'll vote his bitch ass right out on the street.

I thought about this... and that is where he would have to tell his people.. "hey, I voted this way to get the new airport..." and if that changes minds... he keeps the endorsement.

Thus adding a certain level of transparency to things... or you're right, he gets voted out..

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2010, 04:19 PM
The problem is that I have not seen any index that is broken down by a districts wants and the candidates votes...

That is all I would like to see... and I don't believe it exists.

You know what districts want? Pork.

How do their congressmen get them pork? By playing the game.

orange
03-25-2010, 04:21 PM
And as I stated in the OP, if they disagree and then can SHOW WHY and convince them of the merit for the vote... no problem, if NOT they would lose the endorsement and the org. would actively publicize it.

I would still have a big problem with that pledge:

Let's say an organisation(call it True Representation Underway... TRU) is started that endorsed Congressional candidates ONLY IF they agreed to vote according to the will of THERE constituents.

They're basically promising to drift with the winds. Like RJ said, why not just cut out the middlemen and pass laws by polling?

AustinChief
03-25-2010, 04:21 PM
When I vote for a candidate, I understand that I am trusting them to vote how they think is best, even if it doesn't always jibe with what most constituents want - though most likely it usually does. Otherwise, why elect them? We could just make all decisions with polling data.

I agree , I am just asking if anyone would see the value in a private org that kept track of when and possibly why a candidate didn't vote with his public.

That is information I would like to have before re-electing someone... I have the wherewithall to find most of this out, I would like to see it more readily available to the majority of the voting public.

AustinChief
03-25-2010, 04:22 PM
You know what districts want? Pork.

How do their congressmen get them pork? By playing the game.

I know this all too well, I am just proposing something that would make the process a bit more transparent...

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-25-2010, 04:24 PM
I thought about this... and that is where he would have to tell his people.. "hey, I voted this way to get the new airport..." and if that changes minds... he keeps the endorsement.

Thus adding a certain level of transparency to things... or you're right, he gets voted out..

The only problem being, much like the British parliamentary system, your fealty to the party is factored in to what committees you sit on and chair. If you are someone whose opinion changes w/ public perception, not only will you be categorized as a flip flopper by your opponent, but you'll also be sent way down the list of committees because you aren't a reliable vote.

You can't just vote one way one time and get what you want for your constituents, save for very rare circumstances. You have to establish a pattern of partisan behavior.

AustinChief
03-25-2010, 04:25 PM
I would still have a big problem with that pledge:



They're basically promising to drift with the winds. Like RJ said, why not just cut out the middlemen and pass laws by polling?

direct democracy doesn't have the stopgaps to abuse that we need.

as for the "pledge" it needn't even be that formal.. it's not like they are taking an oath or signing a contract... I went ahead and changed the OP to read.." would agree to" better?

in regards to "drift with the winds"... that is why they are given leeway to EXPLAIN why they did what they did and change public opinion... if the public doesn't buy it... so be it.

AustinChief
03-25-2010, 04:27 PM
The only problem being, much like the British parliamentary system, your fealty to the party is factored in to what committees you sit on and chair. If you are someone whose opinion changes w/ public perception, not only will you be categorized as a flip flopper by your opponent, but you'll also be sent way down the list of committees because you aren't a reliable vote.

You can't just vote one way one time and get what you want for your constituents, save for very rare circumstances. You have to establish a pattern of partisan behavior.

And if you can sell that line of reasoning to your constituents... great! If not you lose the endorsement... and maybe get re-elected anyway.

I have serious problems with a two party system anyway, so anything that can shake that up in any way would be beneficial in my eyes.

AustinChief
03-25-2010, 04:28 PM
Is anyone from the RIGHT going to chime in on this at all?