0
   

Electing someone who is representiave

 
 
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2011 12:45 pm
I am not able to choose someone that i would vote for at this time either Dem or Repub. So it occured to me that rather being forced to vote for one of two crooked politicians it would be better to have a lottery in which a representative would be chosen to be a rep. from all the citizens in a given area. They would be truly repersentative of their area rather than the 1% of the population of millionares that are elected in our present system. Perhaps if we had some common reps such as electricians, plumbers, Walmart workers, and other people who have to work for a living we might get real government for all the people rather than the rich 10% who presently get the government we all are paying for. Every 4 0r 6 years of a lottery would give everyone a chance to govern rather than the millionares who now own the government.
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2011 03:56 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

I am not able to choose someone that i would vote for at this time either Dem or Repub. So it occured to me that rather being forced to vote for one of two crooked politicians it would be better to have a lottery in which a representative would be chosen to be a rep. from all the citizens in a given area. They would be truly repersentative of their area rather than the 1% of the population of millionares that are elected in our present system. Perhaps if we had some common reps such as electricians, plumbers, Walmart workers, and other people who have to work for a living we might get real government for all the people rather than the rich 10% who presently get the government we all are paying for. Every 4 0r 6 years of a lottery would give everyone a chance to govern rather than the millionares who now own the government.
That is why the constitution pegged the number of representatives at one for every 30K... It simply is not possible for one representative to represent 600K+ people from highly divided districts... What we have in the house is the key to stalemate and bad government... What we have in the house is the key to our national division and defeat... The parties have done this to us... They are an extraconstituional arm of the government which not one can govern...
RABEL222
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2011 07:09 pm
@Fido,
Thats what I am advocating. End the god forsaken parties. A lottery of all federal offices, reps, senators, and the president would effectively end the parties at the federal level. And it would be truly representative of the population. What we have now is governance of the poor by the rich. Hell what we have is a royalty, the rich, that governs with money.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2011 05:54 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Thats what I am advocating. End the god forsaken parties. A lottery of all federal offices, reps, senators, and the president would effectively end the parties at the federal level. And it would be truly representative of the population. What we have now is governance of the poor by the rich. Hell what we have is a royalty, the rich, that governs with money.
That is how the Greeks decided many of their offices; with fate since they thought each citizen equal to the task... We know better... The object is to let eact person decide for themselves and in representation, to have more rather than less because just a two heads are better than one, many are better than few... The parties acted to limit the number of representatives for their own power and benefit.... They said they wanted to manage the house... Where was the management of government ever put forward as a goal in the constitution... They served themselves... They made the house a sellers market... They robbed the institution of power to give themselves power which they could then trade for cash... They chose corruption and chose it daily since all they did they can undo, if and when they wish...
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2011 06:48 am
@RABEL222,
Would you randomly choose someone to run the local bank? How about a randomly selected citizen to represent you in court? The idea that governing is a low skill job that can be done by anyone seems to be very prevalent but also seems absurd when you think about it. Like any job, to do it well, you have to have relevant experience, pertinent knowledge and a passion to do the work. I don't think you will get that with a random process. You can argue that we don't get that now, but I think we generally do and in the cases where we don't, it is our own fault.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2011 07:47 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Would you randomly choose someone to run the local bank? How about a randomly selected citizen to represent you in court? The idea that governing is a low skill job that can be done by anyone seems to be very prevalent but also seems absurd when you think about it. Like any job, to do it well, you have to have relevant experience, pertinent knowledge and a passion to do the work. I don't think you will get that with a random process. You can argue that we don't get that now, but I think we generally do and in the cases where we don't, it is our own fault.
People might chosse to be their own banker, or represent themselves in most matters in court... There is no reason with self government why everyone could not have a vote, but it is purely stupid to think the current house can be representative when the parties go to such trouble to divide districts so no one person can represent all... How about each district sending two people, each representing their portion of the vote??? No... Both sides are happy with winner take all even if they don't win because they still have their power, which is really our power denied to us because they perverted a system of government that was already perversely set against working people...

I know what they thought: That what the rich want, what the rich think is good for them will be good for the whole country... It is not true... The rich are blind even tot heir own long term self interest... They want to bleed the whole place for profit just as quickly as they can, leaving nothing for tomorrow... In just this fashion parasites kill their hosts... They all think they can take just a little bit more... The working people of this country do not think they can take any more, but they are a long ways from the bottom... If they were suddenly to hit rock bottom the might find they still have the morals to defend themselves and their families, but the slow grind to destruction demoralizes them and makes them worthless examples of humanity...
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2011 01:45 pm
@Fido,
+ 1. You guys are unbelievably brilliant
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2011 02:45 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
People might chosse to be their own banker, or represent themselves in most matters in court...

But most people would agree that they'd be foolish for doing so.

Fido wrote:
There is no reason with self government why everyone could not have a vote, but it is purely stupid to think the current house can be representative when the parties go to such trouble to divide districts so no one person can represent all...

But the original question was that if you keep the existing system of representation, would you be better off randomly selecting a representative instead of voting one in. Even in a party system, I think the answer is no. Randomly selecting a politician would be like randomly selecting someone to be your lawyer. It's not enough to have common sense (not that a randomly selected person would have that even.)
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2011 03:42 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Fido wrote:
People might chosse to be their own banker, or represent themselves in most matters in court...

But most people would agree that they'd be foolish for doing so.

Fido wrote:
There is no reason with self government why everyone could not have a vote, but it is purely stupid to think the current house can be representative when the parties go to such trouble to divide districts so no one person can represent all...

But the original question was that if you keep the existing system of representation, would you be better off randomly selecting a representative instead of voting one in. Even in a party system, I think the answer is no. Randomly selecting a politician would be like randomly selecting someone to be your lawyer. It's not enough to have common sense (not that a randomly selected person would have that even.)
Why keep what does not work... The reason our government originally satisfied the people and respoonded to their needs was the fact that representation was more directly proportional... Okay; since this is a change made by the house to benefit the parties, perhaps they can be induced to change the situation back to some degree since the problem is the want of representation which resorting to chance will hardly solve... All over the country, states will gain or lose districts and those parties in control of the state house will redistrict to suit them... They will give away a few districts to the other party and gerrymander the rest all over themap to ensure their party candidate gets elected every time....

The only danger to the party in such a district is one more radical than the one in office.... This is the key to tea party victories... People who style themselves conservatives can be easier brought to vote reactionary than liberal; but what of the 45% percent of voters year after year who are denied representation of any sort??? It is not fair for them to be denied representation, but it is extremely fair for party politics to be ever more pushed to the extremes to the danger of society... The same thing happens in democratic states as well... It is not fair, but when people do not get from government what they need because the elected party serves itself, then what does anyone expect but radicalism on the part of the voters...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2011 03:45 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Fido wrote:
People might chosse to be their own banker, or represent themselves in most matters in court...

But most people would agree that they'd be foolish for doing so.

Fido wrote:
There is no reason with self government why everyone could not have a vote, but it is purely stupid to think the current house can be representative when the parties go to such trouble to divide districts so no one person can represent all...

But the original question was that if you keep the existing system of representation, would you be better off randomly selecting a representative instead of voting one in. Even in a party system, I think the answer is no. Randomly selecting a politician would be like randomly selecting someone to be your lawyer. It's not enough to have common sense (not that a randomly selected person would have that even.)
It may be a dangerous thing to do, but people every day avoid court by making deals on their own, and settling accounts... The law does not have to be so complicated that only lawyers dare represent us, and it should no be so pervasive that no one can do noffin without a lawyer in their pocket.... But there is no limit to law... I cuts a place for itself out of every picture..... The more law you have the more you need...
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2011 11:44 pm
@engineer,
I randomly choose bankers, and lawyers every day. Hundreds of them in my area. But I cant choose to change politicians but every four or six years and only have a choice of two to vote for. Money buys political office and only the rich can afford to run for office. So yes, I dont see anything wrong with randomly choosing common people for office. Perhaps the random electrician, or steelworker, or garbage truck driver, or farmer might be just as intelligent as a millionare who was left money by his great great grandfather but has never done an honest days work. Bush Jr. comes to mind. Yes I know, he used to cut brush when he was president because it impressed the weak minded who fell for his political crap. A lottery seems to me to be most democratic. But I am just fantasizing, the powers that be wont stand for the masses to govern.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2011 09:10 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

I randomly choose bankers, and lawyers every day. Hundreds of them in my area. But I cant choose to change politicians but every four or six years and only have a choice of two to vote for. Money buys political office and only the rich can afford to run for office. So yes, I dont see anything wrong with randomly choosing common people for office. Perhaps the random electrician, or steelworker, or garbage truck driver, or farmer might be just as intelligent as a millionare who was left money by his great great grandfather but has never done an honest days work. Bush Jr. comes to mind. Yes I know, he used to cut brush when he was president because it impressed the weak minded who fell for his political crap. A lottery seems to me to be most democratic. But I am just fantasizing, the powers that be wont stand for the masses to govern.
It is important to realize you are offered no choice, and that the appearance of having a choice makes people feel responsible and allows them to hold their fellow citizens accountable when we are all equally misled and powerless... Rejoice, rejoice, we have no choice... There is the first step toward freedom, responsibility and morality... We should take it...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Electing someone who is representiave
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/01/2025 at 03:02:55