[Liberty4Life]

I was going to pick B, then Matshark picked B.

That's when I knew unequivocally that A was the right answer.

[ToTheLeft]

I was going to pick B, then shuk picked B.

That's when I knew unequivocally that A was the right answer.

This works, as well.

[BJWilliams]

Given the choice Id rather have neither to be frank.

[LUconn]

what's the real answer then?

[Libertine]

what's the real answer then?

Urim and Thummim.

[ATrain]

A-in representative republic, you vote for the people you represent.

[LUconn]

But what if they want something unreasonable? That basically just makes you a slave to the mob. Might as well elect a computer that can display polling data.


I honestly didn't know what I thought when I started this thread. I kinda had gone back and forth depending on the situation and whether or not I agreed with the majority. I'm more and more convinced that the answer is B, when in reality, most politicians do a mix of the 2 depending on their election cycle.

[ATrain]

But what if they want something unreasonable? That basically just makes you a slave to the mob. Might as well elect a computer that can display polling data.


I honestly didn't know what I thought when I started this thread. I kinda had gone back and forth depending on the situation and whether or not I agreed with the majority. I'm more and more convinced that the answer is B, when in reality, most politicians do a mix of the 2 depending on their election cycle.

If thats what they want, then give it to them and let them deal with the consequences...or hope there are enough votes to defeat what they want.

[matshark]

Either way, if the people don't like them, they will be gone the next election anyways.

I'm in danger of hijacking my own thread here but I believe that this country has gotten to the place where this is not true. It's a combination of voluntary ignorance, and a culture that can support a channel like E!. In other words most of the time it's similar to a 5th grade class election/popularity contest. Term limits is the answer, and I think the reason why Virginia governors tend to be very successful. It's one of the few things I am in favor of despite that I think the idea is contrary to what our founders had in mind.

Well, not necessarily contrary to what our founding fathers had in mind. In the early days, turnover was roughly 50% at each election. So there was essentially a defacto term limit as incumbents were voted out at a pretty good clip.

Id be ok with a limit of 6 terms (heck, maybe even 4 terms) as Congressman (12 years) and 2 terms as Senator (12 years). This would ensure that there were jr and sr senators from each state, and that there was an appropriate amount of senior leadership in both houses (so that new members know whats going on) without having people become entrenched there for 24-36 years (i.e. McCain, Kennedy, etc...) Speaking of which, McCain needs to go...

[LUconn]

But what if they want something unreasonable? That basically just makes you a slave to the mob. Might as well elect a computer that can display polling data.


I honestly didn't know what I thought when I started this thread. I kinda had gone back and forth depending on the situation and whether or not I agreed with the majority. I'm more and more convinced that the answer is B, when in reality, most politicians do a mix of the 2 depending on their election cycle.

If thats what they want, then give it to them and let them deal with the consequences...or hope there are enough votes to defeat what they want.

That's silly and irresponsible. If every rep did that, the people voting money for themselves on top of no taxes would be an inevitability and that's obviously not sustainable. What do you think the purpose of political parties is? They've existed since the beginning. I think another important aspect to an elected official is that they are a leader and we trust them to make intelligent decisions, not be robots.

[ATrain]

But what if they want something unreasonable? That basically just makes you a slave to the mob. Might as well elect a computer that can display polling data.


I honestly didn't know what I thought when I started this thread. I kinda had gone back and forth depending on the situation and whether or not I agreed with the majority. I'm more and more convinced that the answer is B, when in reality, most politicians do a mix of the 2 depending on their election cycle.

If thats what they want, then give it to them and let them deal with the consequences...or hope there are enough votes to defeat what they want.

That's silly and irresponsible. If every rep did that, the people voting money for themselves on top of no taxes would be an inevitability and that's obviously not sustainable. What do you think the purpose of political parties is? They've existed since the beginning. I think another important aspect to an elected official is that they are a leader and we trust them to make intelligent decisions, not be robots.

You trust our Congress to make intelligent decisions?

[LUconn]

Not ours but in theory. More so than the general retard populous.