Announcement

**Joseph** · February 19, 2003, 01:23

San Francisco had about 100,000 protester. The Greater San Francisco area is around 3,000,000 million. That is 3% of the pop. of the bay area. How many in this country protested?

**Bereta_Eder** · February 19, 2003, 01:24

Others couldn't be bothered but still are againsgt the war.

Actually I'd say 1 protestor is worth 10 citizens since it takes effort to get off your butt to protest.

**orange** · February 19, 2003, 01:26

not to mention those on the fence, or those silently wishing it would happen, but knowing it will.

a quarter of the US not supporting this war doesn't sound too far off to me.

**Imran Siddiqui** · February 19, 2003, 01:26

Since they were born, I think.

Well, assuming the protesters are 'the people' in the US... I sure as HELL did not see more than 150 million people out there.

**Bereta_Eder** · February 19, 2003, 01:28

They are the point of the lance. Then comes the lance proper.

**monkspider** · February 19, 2003, 01:31

Bush once again shows that nothing will come between his mad bloodlust for the lives of innocents, not even the voice of a people united against him. Don't worry though my friends, God shall not let him get away with these crimes against humanity. If we do not hold him responsible, he will be held responsible one day and I would not like to be in his shoes when that time comes.

**Timexwatch** · February 19, 2003, 01:32

Originally posted by Sava
Everyone is missing the real problem here. The question isn't about what America really thinks. That's irrelevant because there is no way to ask every single person in this country. These polls are of small sample sizes and don't even come close to representing 1% of America, let alone the entire country. And DinoDoc made a comment that I disagree with.

Congress does not speak for the people. Each congressman (senate and house) have to speak for around 600,000 people. I think that the US is simply too big for the democracy that the Founding Fathers envisioned. Face it, we're relying on a system that is over 200 years old. I don't think I need to tell anybody that things have changed since 200+ years ago. I'm not saying Democracy isn't the answer, I think that the United States needs to be reformed big time. Corporations with big money "speak" for the people. Money buys media exposure, media exposure gets you in the big 2-party vote off at every stage of government except maybe small local and county government.

Bush is ignoring the voice of the people, but of no fault of his own. The system needs to be updated for the 21st century... the confusion on this Iraq thing just proves my point.

Sava, you're under the misconception that people are ignored completely by their Congressmen. Yes, cranks are ignored. But each representative has an extensive staff that get done as much as the Congressman. Citizens, unfortuneatly, have a hard time meeting their representative face to face but have ample opportunity to speak with the staffers who directly influence how a Congressman votes. The actions of each staffer have a heavy bearing on how a Congressman deals with local, state and federal issues. There are case officers whose job is helping constituents with their problems.

Just because you can't stroll into their office and speak with them directly doesn't mean you can't have your voice heard. Most people don't bother to figure out how they can get their voices or issues heard.

"Big Business" may effect some of the "Big Issue" bills, but smaller ones that directly effect the daily lives of people can be influenced.

As to the "Voice of the People", what is that? How do you define what the voice is? Is it the vocal minority who is mobilized to protest? Is the "voice of the people" simply poll numbers on a sheet of paper? Until you actually define what that voice is, you should't claim to be it. There are too many voices out there to claim that they are "the voice". The term "Voice of the People" is largely a populist rhetorical tool that has been tossed around too much to the poing of irrelevancy.

**Ramo** · February 19, 2003, 01:33

Presidents should have popular mandates to start things serious as wars. Shrub is saying that he doesn't care if he has such a mandate or not. He's rejecting democracy (again).

**Imran Siddiqui** · February 19, 2003, 01:40

We've rejected democracy from the beginning, Ramo... it's what makes this country great

.

**Ramo** · February 19, 2003, 01:44

Nah, there was originally some democracy in this country. Then politicians from big cities and big plantations ended it.

**DuncanK** · February 19, 2003, 01:46

Polular mandates would be crazy. A don't want uninformed idiots making those kind of decisions.

**Ramo** · February 19, 2003, 01:48

As opposed to Shrub?

**Urban Ranger** · February 19, 2003, 01:49

Originally posted by DuncanK
A don't want uninformed idiots making those kind of decisions.

Uninformed idiots? The Bush cabinet?

**Mr. President** · February 19, 2003, 01:55

Asking people about every decision is, I think, direct democracy. Unfortunately, direct democracy worked best in the polis when you didn't have to ask more than a few thousand or a few times ten thousand people. And even then some of them declined to give an opinion.

**MrFun** · February 19, 2003, 02:03

Ok, so slightly more than half of the American participants in the survey said they would support war against Iraq, even at the cost of alienating our allies?

I would also like to know the demographics of these survey participants (gender, economic class, ethnicity/race, and religion). That would really reveal what kind of cross-section we're talking about here.

Announcement

Bush To Ignore Voice of the People

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment