Divided Government

[MRT144]

The House of Representatives, by its very nature, is the voice of the people. If the people decide to bankrupt the state, then they are the ones that will reap the consequences. These are the people, after all, that the people themselves chose as their voice in government.

Personally, I have written my representative and expressed my wishes. It is actually pretty easy to do. I wonder how many Americans raising hell about Congress can say that they have ever tried to communicate their feelings directly to their representative. Equally, I wonder how many of those same people even exercised their right to elect someone to speak for them.

For the record...my position is bankrupting the country is a bad idea.

I disagree that the House is the voice of the people because of the idiotic ways house districts have been carved up purely for political gain.

[MRT144]

Yes, but haven't they been doing that for a pretty long time? President invades the hell out of a foreign power on some cockamamie excuse? Yessir, yessir! President gets a blowjob? Impeach that SOB! Part of the problem is that our "small-government" party is scared of every part of government except the ones that are actually dangerous. They'd never question the Executive's prerogative to send armies wherever, detain whoever, snoop on whatever. It's the schools and medicare that terrify them, because by some coincidence(?) they also happen to be the guardians of the American cult of nationalism.

It's been that way since Vietnam, at the very least.

[MRT144]

I would propose that Congress is not dysfunctional, but is actually functioning as intended.

There is a very deep and clear division in the U.S. right now. Congress is simply mirroring the people. When the people wish for change, they shall have it.

This is horse****.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The House of Representatives, by its very nature, is the voice of the people.

Though, I think from the very beginning, the Representatives weren't considered to be simply a cipher for the people, but as a representative of those people able to decide what is best for them (even if the mob disagrees in that instant time).

[PLATO]

I disagree that the House is the voice of the people because of the idiotic ways house districts have been carved up purely for political gain.

Yet all the people have a vote. Indeed, they should exercise that vote on the State level and replace those that draw the district lines if that is their wish.

The problem is not with the representatives...it is with the voters. If the changes that you seem to insinuate are needed become what the people truly want then they will happen.

What most people seem to forget is that we get the kind of government that we ask for. Sometimes people ask for it through apathy...which is the case in the U.S. now. It is far easier to get on a message board and ***** then it is to try and effect real change.

However...real change is possible for those who will act. We need look no further than the fact that a community organizer in Chicago was willing to act and is now the President of the U.S. What better example could you have?

[PLATO]

This is horse****.

Thanks for the elequent nature of your response! True debating prowess.

Seriously, why do feel this?

[MRT144]

Though, I think from the very beginning, the Representatives weren't considered to be simply a cipher for the people, but as a representative of those people able to decide what is best for them (even if the mob disagrees in that instant time).

It's funny how the mob and the house have been reversed in modern times.

[PLATO]

Though, I think from the very beginning, the Representatives weren't considered to be simply a cipher for the people, but as a representative of those people able to decide what is best for them (even if the mob disagrees in that instant time).

Mainly I believe that had more to do with distance than design. In today's world of instant communication it is quite possible for them to be responsive to current wishes. In fact, I believe that is the very reason for all the surveys, phone polls, and focus groups. The problem becomes when a member does not vote the will of his/her constituency, but rather "votes their concscience"...which is usually owned by their largest contributor.

[MRT144]

Thanks for the elequent nature of your response! True debating prowess.

Seriously, why do feel this?

Because your opinion is based on the fallacy that the House represents the will of the people, despite redistricting efforts, despite the clarity with which we can evaluate the will of the people in electing Democrats to the Presidency and Senate. In your myopic view, petty Republicans are super representative of the will of the people.

You bring this topic up every so often and it is more and more sadistic each time.

[DinoDoc]

Though, I think from the very beginning, the Representatives weren't considered to be simply a cipher for the people, but as a representative of those people able to decide what is best for them (even if the mob disagrees in that instant time).

Aren't we confusing them with the Senate pre-17th Amendment here?

[Elok]

I read a book ages ago--I think it was by Fareed Zakaria or something, can't recall--arguing that the current tendency of Congresscritters to shill for contributors can be traced to a change in Senate rules designed to foster transparency and clean government. Supposedly, discussions in subcommittees used to be secret, so nobody knew how the vote broke down. But they changed that so everyone could see who decided what. Now a senator can't vote against his contributors' interests for any reason, because the moment he does their lobbyist will be on the phone raising hell. Something like that. I read that book years ago. There's something to be said for the Founders' snooty aristocratic "cooling chamber" view of the Senate...

[Jon Miller]

Bankrupting the state shouldn't be something that a small majority (or in this case, minority) should be able to do.

JM

[DinoDoc]

Bankrupting the state shouldn't be something that a small majority (or in this case, minority) should be able to do.

JM

Minorities lack the power to do that Jon. It's taken large majorities decades to get us to this point.

[PLATO]

Because your opinion is based on the fallacy that the House represents the will of the people, despite redistricting efforts, despite the clarity with which we can evaluate the will of the people in electing Democrats to the Presidency and Senate. In your myopic view, petty Republicans are super representative of the will of the people.

You bring this topic up every so often and it is more and more sadistic each time.

Actually, I would feel the same way if Democrats were in control of the House. Given that the district lines are drawn by the elected representatives in the States, I would say that there is not a clarity with which we can evaluate the will of the people. Most of the States have Republicans governing them. What we can evaluate is the concentration of differing groups...which speaks to the divide in the country I am talking about.

Not sure how discussing my point of view makes me myopic and sadistic. Couldn't I easily say the same of yours?

Essentially though, what I call for could quite likely provide the result that it so obviously appears that you want. If the will of the people is so clear, then getting them involved should reflect that.

[Elok]

It's been that way since Vietnam, at the very least.

Another interesting question--for me, at least--is what will happen re: the GOP. Their "brand" isn't doing so hot, especially with younger folks (and by younger folks, I mean under forty, not just college kids). I assume they will eventually rework themselves to appeal to someone beyond the dwindling stodgy-white-dude demographic, but what form will their new coalition take? Sadly, someone has to stand up for the poor widdle Military Industrial Complex, since it has too much cash to go unrepresented...