Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Politicians' method of voting

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 4:19:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have noticed some hypocrisy among some, on how a politician is to vote.

Some say that a politician should vote their mind, as the people voted you in so you could use your judgment to vote the way you think is best. While others say you are to vote the way your constituents want, as you were voted in by them, and you represent them.

What say you?

I think they should vote their conscience, as an unpopular policy may be for the best, and if people don't realize it, don't care, or the politician was wrong, they can be voted out.

The hypocrisy is those that at times when its convenient will say that the politician represents the people, and should do what the constituents demand. However, they then vilify people like Michelle Bachmann for doing what her heavily Republican district prefers. Or they will instigate/participate in national call drives from people outside of a politician's district. Why should a MN senator care what a New Yorker thinks on an issue, unless their conscience should override the will of the people.
My work here is, finally, done.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 4:26:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 4:19:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I have noticed some hypocrisy among some, on how a politician is to vote.

Some say that a politician should vote their mind, as the people voted you in so you could use your judgment to vote the way you think is best. While others say you are to vote the way your constituents want, as you were voted in by them, and you represent them.

What say you?

I think they should vote their conscience, as an unpopular policy may be for the best, and if people don't realize it, don't care, or the politician was wrong, they can be voted out.

The hypocrisy is those that at times when its convenient will say that the politician represents the people, and should do what the constituents demand. However, they then vilify people like Michelle Bachmann for doing what her heavily Republican district prefers. Or they will instigate/participate in national call drives from people outside of a politician's district. Why should a MN senator care what a New Yorker thinks on an issue, unless their conscience should override the will of the people.

I think that politicians should be able to choose whether they directly represent the people and vote based on that (via letters and emails sent to them and lobbying), or they can vote based on their own morals, but they should have to answer to people on major decisions (Things such as the notorious Patriot Act, socialized medicine, war funds/war resource allocations, etc.). I think if we had a more intelligent and enlightened society, we could have a more direct democracy, but if we did, only about 15% of the people would come out to vote, all the other ding dongs would be home voting on the next American Idol.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 5:25:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm a little surprised that there has only been one comment; I thought everyone would have an opinion. Perhaps I used a bad topic title....
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 5:58:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 4:19:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I have noticed some hypocrisy among some, on how a politician is to vote.

Some say that a politician should vote their mind, as the people voted you in so you could use your judgment to vote the way you think is best. While others say you are to vote the way your constituents want, as you were voted in by them, and you represent them.

What say you?

I think they should vote their conscience, as an unpopular policy may be for the best, and if people don't realize it, don't care, or the politician was wrong, they can be voted out.

The hypocrisy is those that at times when its convenient will say that the politician represents the people, and should do what the constituents demand. However, they then vilify people like Michelle Bachmann for doing what her heavily Republican district prefers. Or they will instigate/participate in national call drives from people outside of a politician's district. Why should a MN senator care what a New Yorker thinks on an issue, unless their conscience should override the will of the people.

As long as the vote isn't about what's best for their party, first and foremost, as most are these days (both sides of the aisle), then I'm generally pretty happy.

You're getting way too deep on this. Baby steps, my man...baby steps.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 6:36:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/10/2013 5:58:31 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/8/2013 4:19:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I have noticed some hypocrisy among some, on how a politician is to vote.

Some say that a politician should vote their mind, as the people voted you in so you could use your judgment to vote the way you think is best. While others say you are to vote the way your constituents want, as you were voted in by them, and you represent them.

What say you?

I think they should vote their conscience, as an unpopular policy may be for the best, and if people don't realize it, don't care, or the politician was wrong, they can be voted out.

The hypocrisy is those that at times when its convenient will say that the politician represents the people, and should do what the constituents demand. However, they then vilify people like Michelle Bachmann for doing what her heavily Republican district prefers. Or they will instigate/participate in national call drives from people outside of a politician's district. Why should a MN senator care what a New Yorker thinks on an issue, unless their conscience should override the will of the people.

As long as the vote isn't about what's best for their party, first and foremost, as most are these days (both sides of the aisle), then I'm generally pretty happy.
Yes, that is the third option, and by far the worst.

You're getting way too deep on this. Baby steps, my man...baby steps.
I just am tired of the hypocrisy among advocates who selectively choose how one should vote when its convienent (i.e. whether they agree or not).
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 7:09:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/10/2013 6:36:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/10/2013 5:58:31 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

As long as the vote isn't about what's best for their party, first and foremost, as most are these days (both sides of the aisle), then I'm generally pretty happy.
Yes, that is the third option, and by far the worst.

and currently, the most common. (except for Olympia Snowe...I didn't always agree with her, but she did not let party saddle her decision making...I respect that...actually, most Republican women, token Alaskan beauty queens notwithstanding, tend to embody an independent spirit and harken back to what I thought a Republican was supposed to be after the parties switched out the southern contingent around the end of WWII and it 180'd from DNP to GOP...I suppose the northeast did the exact opposite...whatever, what I'm sayin' is the I generally agreed with the ideas, and what I imagine the policies of Nixon would have been in '60, and many of the older, established GOP women leaders seem to be in lockstep with that sort of legislative style...).

Anyway, it seemingly used to be about different tactics to reach the same goal. Now it's about who gains positive brand image. it's a joke I tend to ignore now, because it stopped being funny when it was the only one ever used.

You're getting way too deep on this. Baby steps, my man...baby steps.
I just am tired of the hypocrisy among advocates who selectively choose how one should vote when its convienent (i.e. whether they agree or not).

Yeah, I find an overall consistency of belief tends to combat this in myself, but it's an easy trap in which to fall.

Everyone wants what they want, and they don't care how they get it most times.

I have no idea how the vocal critic of Bush is the vocal supporter of Obama, but they are. Strange days, indeed, and people either don't realize they're doing it, or can't bear to admit it, because it will nullify a lifetime of X if they do, so at a certain point, they're aware of the lie but cease to care.

As I often say, propaganda all works and sh!t, except on GOP Women leaders over age 55...mostly.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 8:27:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/10/2013 6:36:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/10/2013 5:58:31 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/8/2013 4:19:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I have noticed some hypocrisy among some, on how a politician is to vote.

Some say that a politician should vote their mind, as the people voted you in so you could use your judgment to vote the way you think is best. While others say you are to vote the way your constituents want, as you were voted in by them, and you represent them.

What say you?

I think they should vote their conscience, as an unpopular policy may be for the best, and if people don't realize it, don't care, or the politician was wrong, they can be voted out.

The hypocrisy is those that at times when its convenient will say that the politician represents the people, and should do what the constituents demand. However, they then vilify people like Michelle Bachmann for doing what her heavily Republican district prefers. Or they will instigate/participate in national call drives from people outside of a politician's district. Why should a MN senator care what a New Yorker thinks on an issue, unless their conscience should override the will of the people.

As long as the vote isn't about what's best for their party, first and foremost, as most are these days (both sides of the aisle), then I'm generally pretty happy.
Yes, that is the third option, and by far the worst.
Whether it is the worst option or not, it is the most favorable option taken by most politicians. Power is the key. Everyone will do anything to hold on to power and not fall from the grace.


You're getting way too deep on this. Baby steps, my man...baby steps.
I just am tired of the hypocrisy among advocates who selectively choose how one should vote when its convienent (i.e. whether they agree or not).
Craving for power and domination is the nature of every human being.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 9:51:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 4:19:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I have noticed some hypocrisy among some, on how a politician is to vote.

Some say that a politician should vote their mind, as the people voted you in so you could use your judgment to vote the way you think is best. While others say you are to vote the way your constituents want, as you were voted in by them, and you represent them.

What say you?

I think they should vote their conscience, as an unpopular policy may be for the best, and if people don't realize it, don't care, or the politician was wrong, they can be voted out.

The hypocrisy is those that at times when its convenient will say that the politician represents the people, and should do what the constituents demand. However, they then vilify people like Michelle Bachmann for doing what her heavily Republican district prefers. Or they will instigate/participate in national call drives from people outside of a politician's district. Why should a MN senator care what a New Yorker thinks on an issue, unless their conscience should override the will of the people.

The answer IMHO is simple. Vote your constituency. Why? Because your constituency got you elected. More than likely your beliefs on "what matters" gel pretty closely to your constituency anyway.

People who vilify Bachmann more than likely didn't vote for her anyway, so she could care less what they think. Robert Byrd, a democrat from West Virginia, got away with saying "white n!ggers" in a public interview, and was a former KKK leader. He got elected anyway, 9 times even. Probably not a lot of "n!ggers" of any race in West Virginia, methinks.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 3:29:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 9:51:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/8/2013 4:19:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I have noticed some hypocrisy among some, on how a politician is to vote.

Some say that a politician should vote their mind, as the people voted you in so you could use your judgment to vote the way you think is best. While others say you are to vote the way your constituents want, as you were voted in by them, and you represent them.

What say you?

I think they should vote their conscience, as an unpopular policy may be for the best, and if people don't realize it, don't care, or the politician was wrong, they can be voted out.

The hypocrisy is those that at times when its convenient will say that the politician represents the people, and should do what the constituents demand. However, they then vilify people like Michelle Bachmann for doing what her heavily Republican district prefers. Or they will instigate/participate in national call drives from people outside of a politician's district. Why should a MN senator care what a New Yorker thinks on an issue, unless their conscience should override the will of the people.

The answer IMHO is simple. Vote your constituency. Why? Because your constituency got you elected. More than likely your beliefs on "what matters" gel pretty closely to your constituency anyway.

But, I see advocates promote "call-ins" to tell so-and-so that they are wrong for voting a certain way, and should vote the other way in tomorrow's vote. If the politician should only be about the majority of their voters, then no one from another state, or district within the same state, should be interferring. Furthermore, if there was a conflict of interest, the politician then should be addressing their constituency and trying to sway their minds, so the politician then has credence to vote the way they wanted to.

Think of how many neighboring unions and states' citizens acted to recall Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin because of his stance on public unions. There were pleas for me to call, I being in MN as well as the advocate.


People who vilify Bachmann more than likely didn't vote for her anyway, so she could care less what they think. Robert Byrd, a democrat from West Virginia, got away with saying "white n!ggers" in a public interview, and was a former KKK leader. He got elected anyway, 9 times even. Probably not a lot of "n!ggers" of any race in West Virginia, methinks.

So, let's take something controversial, like the NDAA, Obamacare, or the Patriot Act. Let's say that a politician is for it, while their constiuency is 60% against it. You say the politician then should vote against it, even though the politician took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and this bill is, in their view, unconstitutional.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 3:45:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/10/2013 7:09:34 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/10/2013 6:36:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/10/2013 5:58:31 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

As long as the vote isn't about what's best for their party, first and foremost, as most are these days (both sides of the aisle), then I'm generally pretty happy.
Yes, that is the third option, and by far the worst.

and currently, the most common. (except for Olympia Snowe...I didn't always agree with her, but she did not let party saddle her decision making...I respect that...actually, most Republican women, token Alaskan beauty queens notwithstanding, tend to embody an independent spirit and harken back to what I thought a Republican was supposed to be after the parties switched out the southern contingent around the end of WWII and it 180'd from DNP to GOP...I suppose the northeast did the exact opposite...whatever, what I'm sayin' is the I generally agreed with the ideas, and what I imagine the policies of Nixon would have been in '60, and many of the older, established GOP women leaders seem to be in lockstep with that sort of legislative style...).

Anyway, it seemingly used to be about different tactics to reach the same goal. Now it's about who gains positive brand image. it's a joke I tend to ignore now, because it stopped being funny when it was the only one ever used.

This is exactly right.

As per our other conversation about discrimination and the "right" to:
You and your team wants to maximize liberty by sacrificing a little of everyone's regarding how businesses operate. While my team wants to maximize liberty by swallowing the bitter pill of allowing bigots to be bigots, but securing property rights for all.

The same goal, different approaches.
Gun control is about safety (no one can use them vs. no one will dare try anything).

Welfare is about aiding the poor (at all times because some need it/the public needs to do this vs. short time so people don't grow dependant on it/the private market can do it with a little prodding like charity deduction or tax credits)

But, alas, now it is more about having the other party lose at any cost...
My work here is, finally, done.