Republican presidential debate (2/13/16)

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: UKTruth
5) Publish the report through all major news agencies along with running totals and commentary for the year.

Everytihng you mentioned is just a variant of this so I'm not quoting them all. This doesn't work, Congress only has an 11% approval rating but most of congress has a 60%+ approval rating in their district. Everyone is happy with how the group of them act, but for the most part Americans like the person they put in there. Don't forget, that for every person who is called out and shamed as having gone against the Presidents wishes there's another person who treats that as a rallying cry for the Congressman having done what they were supposed to do.

You are also badly wrong on who Trumps voters are. They are not all low information voters, in fact he won across the board in NH. New voters, long term voters, men , women, all education levels, very conservative, moderate. He won everywhere.

Winning across broad demographics does not mean they're not low education, furthermore not all low information voters are dumb. The vast majority of people are low information voters. By definition there are not large segments of the general public that are experts on foreign policy, trade, immigration, economics, and everything else the President or any elected official has to deal with. Any given person is usually at best an expert on just one of those subjects (and many aren't even an expert on one). This means that most people quite simply are not qualified to even judge the merits of someones campaign plans.

This in turn causes elections to be about saying something that sounds good rather than about something that actually is good.

Good post.

So what I was driving at is not a measure against the Presidents wishes, but the peoples. The approval ratings might be high within a senators state, however not every issue carries the same approvals.

So, in essence, on an issue (not every issue) you ask the people to express their views (a straw poll) and then match it to how the senator voted. Now of course it is not a 1 to 1 thing. Sometimes it will be right for a senator to deal and do something for the longer term, however those senators that consistently go against the will of the people should be highlighted. At the moment there is not enough transparency and accountability. More so in teh senate with comfy 6 year terms. Maybe a more simple solution would to make their terms 2 years as it is in the House.

Regardless a very pubic review week by week of each senator would give transparency.


In terms or low information vs low education, I take your point. I would, however, say that ling time primary voters are more likely to be higher information voters (generalisation) - they went for Trump to.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Trump would get shredded by Sanders in the general. He's not attacking him because "The Donald" is smarter than he looks and acts (though maybe just barely.) He's seen what has happened to Clinton. He knows attacks don't work on Sanders and only empower him.

Trump is trying to appeal to Republicans and Democrats by positioning himself in the centre. He is never going to get hard right or left votes, but can eat up votes form moderates in both parties. I suspect that most of his rhetoric is now aimed at the general election.

Woo democrats and independents that are fence sitting.

a reply to: UKTruth

Remember though that it's not the job of a Senator to represent the public. We may publicly elect them now rather than appoint them, but their job is still to advance the agenda of the state. The House is where the will of the people is supposed to be reflected and due to the 2 year terms I would argue that they are much more in line with the wishes of the people they represent.

Furthermore, public politics are a messy thing. What is said and what is done do not necessarily coincide. I'll use Ron Paul as an example, he would always amend spending bills to add pork for his district, but once he knew the bill had enough votes to pass he would vote no (and he would often work behind the scenes to make sure he could safely vote no). It wasn't because he was opposed to what the bill was doing or what it contained but rather because he had a public image to uphold as part of his campaign persona.

And I would argue that long time primary voters aren't higher information, they just feel more strongly about the issues. Net Neutrality is the first issue that jumps to mind here because you could see it on these boards. There were many people who felt very strongly on the issue in both directions, but the strength of feelings on the issue didn't correlate to actual knowledge on the issue.