Active Now

Element 99
Discussion » Questions » Politics » Does America's Government Actually Represent Its Citizens?

Does America's Government Actually Represent Its Citizens?

We're SUPPOSED to be a representative republic, but yet, if you ask them, the overwhelming majority of  Americans will say they've never met their representative or senator--much less the president of the United States.  If/as that is the case, HOW on EARTH can they possibly represent you?  Unless you have the financial wherewithal (like those mentioned in the article cited below), you stand a worse chance of meeting them than a snowball has in surviving the fires of hell.

And yet we still dutifully pull the lever, just like our civics teacher told us to do, even though we KNOW, intuitively, that the people who aspire to rule/own us couldn't give two squats about us!

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

Posted - August 23, 2016

Responses


  • 2758

         "Who cares."

    You must. You responded.  I always get so tickled when people take the time to respond by saying "who cares." :-)

         "I know you already and we have never seen each other. "

    You don't know anything about me.  What you IMAGINE to be true about me is based on what I CHOOSE to present to you on this forum.  Hell, you don't even know if I mean or actually believe half the crap I say!   That would only come by way of ASKING me what I think/believe, and not ASSUMING you know.

    I thought you were deeper than this, Sharonna.

      August 24, 2016 2:51 PM MDT
    0

  • 1113

    It's not a perfect system by any means, but democracy is the only sensible option.

      September 1, 2016 1:21 PM MDT
    0

  • I get where you're coming from - that no government run by humans can ever be ideal.

    I agree on the ground that we are inevitably and frequently fallible, and collectively our mistakes compound consequences.

    Despite that, unless or until all humans miraculously learn the art of empathy and willing, unconditional love for all of life, I think we need the kind of government most likely to assist in preventing or minimizing our harmful behaviours.

    So far, it seems that democracy is the best option out of all the forms of government. I know that it is corrupt and becoming more so.

    I know that it is probably impossible to get sufficient anti-corruption laws, surveillance and motivation built into the system but, failing the advent of a love virus, I think we have to keep trying our best to get it right, and for me that means participating. If I turn my back on things that cause harm, I become part of the problem.

      September 1, 2016 2:14 PM MDT
    0

  • 503

        You nailed it ,Rpf1918.  But as you've just read there is always a certain % of whiners and utopia seekers on the fringe !

      September 1, 2016 2:28 PM MDT
    0

  • The fine is $50, applicable only if you had no excuse for failing to vote - such as being unexpectedly sick or unable to move on the day. Written excuse is accepted without checking. I discovered this by accident when i failed to vote due to a stomach virus. Even though even the poorest could probably afford it, none of us wants to pay if we can help it.

    Some people avoid voting by failing to enroll. I'm not sure how or when this change occurred, because when I was 18 I received a letter telling me I was now enrolled and in which state and federal electorates - that was under Whitlam, who had just brought the voting age down by 3 years.

    When you grow up with a system, the tendency is to find it much easier to accept. I know very few Australians who have chosen not to enrol and have successfully avoided being caught. They are people who rent where they live - not owning property makes them harder to trace. Not impossible - but since there are so few who don't register, the government makes no effort to find them.

    Not perfect? I've written something about that above in reply to Nimitz. I keep trying to think of ways in which democracy could be improved. Ways which improve representation of the interests of all citizens as well as protecting animals from cruelty and the environment from degradation and pollution. I believe there are several reforms which could help significantly.

    But unfortunately, the academics at the great universities around the world are all in agreement that all of our democracies are now in the hands of the interests of wealthy elites - the game of democracy has become a demogogic farce similar to what was occurring in the time of Julius Caesar. It won't be long before we see the emergence of characters like Nero.

    Plato wrote about the tendency of democracies to be eroded by corruption. I was shocked when I read it as a teenager, and now, during my lifetime, I have watched it growing and been helpless to prevent it.

    I suspect that the only way to clean it out will end up being civil war -though we are still a long way from the point of combustibility (see Jaques Barzan's "500 years of Western Civiliszation.")

      September 1, 2016 2:40 PM MDT
    0

  • 13277

    And who pissed in your oatmeal?

      September 1, 2016 2:42 PM MDT
    0

  • 2758

    You're so right!  Seeking a better way (Utopia) is just WRONG!

    LOLOLOL!

      September 1, 2016 2:56 PM MDT
    0

  • 2758

    Forget the virus. What we need is something like toxoplasmosis designed to remove the fear of government. :-)

    Parasite makes mice lose fear of cats permanently

    :-)

      September 1, 2016 3:01 PM MDT
    0

  • 503

    All that's missing is Judy Garland singing " Over the Rainbow" !

      September 1, 2016 3:23 PM MDT
    0

  • 2758

    Nobody.  Why would you assume that they have?

      September 1, 2016 3:31 PM MDT
    0

  • 2758

    Trying to get on my good side will be futile, ElChappo.  I've already sussed you as a troll. :-)

      September 1, 2016 3:32 PM MDT
    0

  • 1002

    Nope. When the elections are controlled completely by two parties that have the power to effectively shutout all competing parties, of which there are many, there can be no real representation.

    Not entirely their fault, the framers partially designed it that way. Representation was always a joke.

      September 1, 2016 3:42 PM MDT
    0

  • 2758

      September 1, 2016 4:04 PM MDT
    0

  • 46117

    No.  It represents the citizens of Siberia.

      September 1, 2016 4:07 PM MDT
    0

  • 2758

    It might as well.  It sure as hell doesn't represent me.

      September 1, 2016 4:27 PM MDT
    0

  • 2515
    1. Congress represents the people. When they pass legislation, they are doing the work of the people. You have state representative and senators that also represent the people.
    2. You don't have to meet any of them. You vote for them.
    3. You have a bad attitude about government. I've know many politicians, especially from local and state governments who care about people and help them. They have helped me personally. The
      September 1, 2016 4:34 PM MDT
    0

  • 13277
    Your question indicates that you're angry, unhappy, or both.
      September 1, 2016 6:05 PM MDT
    0

  • Filipe Campante, Assistant professor of public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard, checked his median- voter theory against statistics from the  2000 and 2006 USA national elections. He wrote, “The data suggest not only that the rich contribute disproportionately more than the poor, but also that inequality has a positive impact on contributions amassed by the relatively anti-redistribution (Republican) party, and a negative impact on those gathered by the relatively pro-redistribution (Democratic) party.” Reported by Robert O'Neill -https://www.hks.harvard.edu/.../inequality-increases-

    Blurb for the book "Affluence and Influence," by Martin Gilens, Professor of Politics at Princeton University - "With sharp analysis and an impressive range of data, Martin Gilens looks at thousands of proposed policy changes, and the degree of support for each among poor, middle-class, and affluent Americans. His findings are staggering: when preferences of low- or middle-income Americans diverge from those of the affluent, there is virtually no relationship between policy outcomes and the desires of less advantaged groups. In contrast, affluent Americans' preferences exhibit a substantial relationship with policy outcomes whether their preferences are shared by lower-income groups or not. Gilens shows that representational inequality is spread widely across different policy domains and time periods. Yet Gilens also shows that under specific circumstances the preferences of the middle class and, to a lesser extent, the poor, do seem to matter. In particular, impending elections--especially presidential elections--and an even partisan division in Congress mitigate representational inequality and boost responsiveness to the preferences of the broader public."

    I bought the book and read it not long ago. Quite an eye opener. Australia started with a system that was a cut and paste from England's Westminster system. In various ways we have been betrayed by Britain - the debacle at Gallipoli in the first world war, atomic bomb testing in the S.A. desert and other events. After WWII, we formed the ANZAC pact with America. Ever since then our legislation has been slowly, unevenly, drifting further right, but in the last 25 years the changes have been speeding up. Our country is becoming more like yours. We are influenced by the States in military, political, economic and cultural policies. Indeed, the changes are so strong, that I have wondered whether we sealed a deal that had secret components which lost us our autonomy.

    As a result, I have a keen interest in learning to understand how the American system works in both theory and practice.

    I confess to finding it quite scary.

      September 1, 2016 7:34 PM MDT
    0

  • I've posted another answer which uses the research of people more knowledgeable than I am.

    I have no need to meet politicians. I think that when a country is very large it is not practical, useful or necessary to meet every citizen - it would take so much time that no legislative work would get done. Rather, the

    I think that when a country is very large it is not practical, useful or necessary to meet every citizen - it would take so much time that no legislative work would get done. The exceptions would be people in circumstances that need direct contact to fully understand the situation. There would be many of these.

    Rather, the representative needs access to accurate surveys and statistics of citizen's needs and views, as well as independent specialist research on issues. The citizens need to know the candidate's background record and the policies he or she intends to implement. Spin and celebrity-like promotional campaigns do not serve the best interests of citizens.

    I would prefer to see less partisan alignments with parties more smaller parties and independent candidates so that there is a greater cross section of choice on policies. This is one of the few positive recent changes in Australia occurring as a result of discontent with the two main parties.

      September 1, 2016 8:21 PM MDT
    0

  • 2758

    1) Congress doesn't represent me.  I don't even know my congressman.

    2) I don't vote for anyone who doesn't represent me--either philosophically or as a person.

    3) This isn't about me.  Read the question again. My attitude about government is irrelevant--as is your ad hominem response.

      September 1, 2016 10:45 PM MDT
    0

  • 2758

    That's the problem with reading too much into a question.  The interpretation is almost always wrong.  It certainly is in this case.

      September 1, 2016 10:46 PM MDT
    0

  • 13277

    There's no doubt that you're angry about your elected representatives - the people and the process. That comes through loud and clear - no room for misinterpretation. It's obvious that someone pissed in your oatmeal.

      September 1, 2016 10:58 PM MDT
    0

  • 2758

    And where might you have earned your degree in psychology?  For that matter, when did you first discover the ability to read minds?

    :-)

      September 2, 2016 12:05 AM MDT
    0

  • 13277
    It's not necessary to read your mind - it's way too obvious in your question.
      September 2, 2016 1:45 AM MDT
    0

  • 2758

    Sounds like you have an agenda.  You CERTAINLY don't care about my wellbeing, so there has to be some reason for pursuing this nonsense.  What is it?

    BTW, are you ever going to answer the question. :-)

      September 2, 2016 1:13 PM MDT
    0