Representation without representation

There is talk of a vote where we, the people, cannot see how our representatives have voted. If this takes place, Democracy, or Democratic Republics, are dead. No longer are we a democracy, but instead, we are just like the prom. Popularity, regardless of the individual.

The system was once set up to where politicians represented the people who elected them. If they failed to represent the folks who elected them, they would be fired in an election and someone else would take their place. Now, we find our government seeking to have those who we call representatives make decisions without us, those whom they claim to represent, knowing what they're doing.

This makes the term "representative" an Orwellian lie. If they were willing to represent the people, they would be public in their lawmaking. If they, instead, wanted to represent the company, the party, without having to deal with the people, they are no longer representatives.

Abe Lincoln said we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If we have a blind vote on something so paramount to Americans, no longer are we for nor by the people. We are for and by the party.

[edit on 3/17/2010 by junglejake]

[edit on 3/19/2010 by junglejake]

reply to post by junglejake


Agreed.

And without being dramatic, this is the line being drawn, this is the signal to all true Americans regardless of political affiliation to stand tall and dismantle this madness. This can not be overstated.

The speaker of the house should be impeached if she allows a private vote. How does a speaker of the house become impeached?

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Every two years there's an opportunity. And the house can change it at any time.

I somehow missed this announcement...

Who's the driving force, as if I didn't know, behind this travesty?

A blind vote? Power to the pols...because our representitive democracy is gone if this goes through...

The same way any member can be. The voters of his/her district. Or an ethics committee (an oxymoron, I know), can recommend various punishments, up to and including removal from their seat.

No longer are we a democracy

We never were a democracy...a democracy is mob rule...even the founding fathers were against the idea of a "democracy".

The system was once set up to where politicians represented the people who elected them. I they failed to represent the folks who elected them, they would be fired in an election and someone else would take their place.

And you can still do this, nothing has changed. Do you think you won't be able to find out who voted to approve this new rule? And if you don't like the way they voted on that...then don't vote for them next time.


I fail to see how this changes anything.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You fail to see a lot of things.

*Second line*



Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Wed Mar 17 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]

reply to post by gwydionblack


And if I do...as I say in most of your posts...SHOW ME WHAT I AM MISSING???


I have asked this so many times and you just won't do it. All I get out of you is "freedom"...that is a very vague answer...yet you fail to elaborate. And now you will say that you have done it in the past....so you won't do it again. And if I ask you to direct me to where you have defined what I am missing...you will tell me it is a waste of time. Just one big circle.

So here is another chance for you...show me what I am missing.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You are missing it because you are *snip*

How is a "blind vote" legal and Constitutional? How is blatantly hiding decisions of our representatives for the sole fact that we the people can not see it rational and representative of our interests?

Now, not only do these representatives get the opportunity to decide FOR US regardless of our wills or voices, but they get to do it without us knowing how or why.

You say we never were a democracy and that the Founding Fathers were against such. The second statement is true, but to claim that we aren't a democracy and aren't run by "mob rule" is just ludicrous. We are supposed to be a Republic but we have turned into this democracy that has led to the usurpation of our rights.

It isn't a matter of whether you actually "find out" how people voted in this bill, it is the fact that these people - the ones that apparently WE VOTED IN to represent US - are even ATTEMPTING to hide this from the people. Where do we draw the line? What is rational about such a blatant spit in the face of the people?




If your definition of true representation is anything close to what is happening today, then please - read the Constitutions and the words of the Founding Fathers again, because we are far from the target mark.


EDIT TO ADD:

The fact that you consider freedom to be "vague" goes to show why you will never understand my definition of it. Freedom, by any definition to me, is never vague.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by gwydionblack]



Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory



[edit on Wed Mar 17 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]

Representatives? Since when have they really represented the people. Last I heard from the pant loads in DC how they were going to vote their opinion and not the prevailing opinion of their district.

Town Hall meetings during a recess, but packed with people that follow their opinion and the people that opposed their prima donna personas were just "paid political activists for the other side".

Ethics? You want ethics? Make the whole body politic responsible for the actions of their brethren. One gets out of line, remove every last one of them and barr them all from ever holding a position of the public trust again. Like a political equivalent of excommunication.

Blind vote on the largest piece of legislation in over 70 years? Okay, so long as after the vote they are all executed for gross misrepresentation regardless of the outcome of the vote.

By my word of honor, if this is signed into law by a blind vote I will consider it a formal declaration of war against the American People and will raise an army to put an end to this madness my damn self.

We the public do not want the health care bill that is being forced down our throats. Since what we want does not matter it becomes evident that passing health care legislation is not about what is good for Americans, its about what is good for the insurance companies and what is good for the Democratic Party. Getting re-elected is not the concern of the Obama regime.

The Democrats selfish desire to pass this legislation has many commenting that if they pass this it that Democrats will lose many seats and if the turnover is drastic as expected, it will change how the Congress and the Senate do business in the future. Well, I don't think this matters to the Democrats and I will try to explain why.

Well I use to think that there were those that would be concerned with getting re-elected, but it has gone beyond that. What is at stake for the Democrats in the health care legislation is the fact that even if they continue to anger the public and if they manage to pass this legislation using the Slaughter ruling, then what this means to me is that if passed, what is in the legislation are elements that will allow the federal government to deal with anyone or any group that raises a campaign to undo what has been achieved by those in office.

In other words, if this health care legislation is passed it will prevent us from being able to undo it without resorting to drastic measures that many are averse to. While some States have started legislation to prevent complying with any unconstitutional legislation, I contend that it will not matter and we will see this as soon as the health care bill gets passed.

By acting the manner that Obama has chosen, he has proven he is a fraud and has deceived the public about many things that matter only to Obama and his Communist Democratic co-conspirators.

Obama's actions show us clearly that he has no regard for process of law or anything to do with what the Constitution provides. Obama views the Constitution as a hindrance to the Global World Order and as such Obama and all his Circus of Imbeciles could care less what we want or whether it is Constitutional or not.

Such action from the sitting President clearly shows he wants to dictate what we are going to get as legislation and he could care less if its not legal or moral. His actions are clearly Dictatorial and that alone should alarm every American citizen sitting at home wondering how did we get this messed up?

Obama and the Democratic Party that supports him is showing that they support Obama in his dictatorial move to shove legislation on the American public whether we want it or not. Since Obama's actions have become blatantly dictatorial, it should surprise no one that Obama is now beginning to show us just how much of would be Dictator he seeks to be. Any president that would go against the will of the people and use his party to sell the deception is exactly what he appears to be. Obama appears to be a Dictator coming out of the closet and when he comes out completely, it will be too late for us to say we disapprove.

With dictatorial behavior and with turning a deaf ear to the will of the people is enough in my mind to conclude that Obama is not qualified to be the president and by showing us his Dictatorial side, he has proven that he should be removed immediately as being not fit to represent the USA. His actions are clearly in violation of the Constitution and by that fact alone, Obama should be removed without fail.

Obama is a professional liar as is the Democratic Party and together they intend to enslave the American public and rob us of what little wealth remains by passing legislation that is illegal and not in the public's interests.

Enacting legislation without the will of the people clearly states that we the people do not matter. As such, the sooner we begin to remove the traitors within our gates the sooner we can regain some sense of decency and moral conduct in our elected representatives that will obey the will of the people, not undermine the will of the people and subvert process to achieve a goal that does not benefit the public in any way shape or form.

We deserve to have our elected representatives do what we ask. Any politician that refuses the will of the citizens it supposedly represents should be immediately removed and never allowed to serve in public office ever again.

This lack of representation and lack of concern for what matters to the American public is exactly what is wrong with politics and the sooner we address those that refuse to listen to the will of Americans, the sooner we can get back to some resemblance of true governmental representation.

It is time to show our discontent and in doing so we have to focus on the guilty that are passing this unwanted legislation. Once we do, we can begin to focus on those that need to be removed from office and sent packing to where ever they came from. We don't need dictators and we don't need representatives that do not listen to the will of the people.

Thanks for the posting.

Okay, I'm confused. Is there a link for this anywhere?

To my knowledge a "blind vote" doesn't mean you don't know how your representative voted, it means they voted on something "blindly" without reading it.

A vote where you don't know who voted how is a "secret ballot".

Little help?

(Not that the idea of a blind vote isn't outrageous, I just want to make sure my outrage is directed at the proper absurdity).

reply to post by yeahright


Thank you for bringing a little sense to the table. I logged in specifically to comment on this thread with pretty much exactly what you just said. Unfortunately, the sensationalism will probably continue for another few pages with people completely missing your post. So, I'll add to it I guess.

reply to post by junglejake


Where is the link? I ran every search I could think of on Google to try and find some reference to Health care and blind voting and found nothing. I thought this site was about Denying Ignorance, not spreading it.

As yeahright stated, blind voting is about voting without reading the bill which, admittedly, with a 3000 page bill is entirely possible.

As an analogy, look at how many people starred and flagged this page without reading it, thinking "This is important and should be on the front page, how dare they!"

That is blind voting.

reply to post by yeahright


I believe you are correct...it is not a "blind vote" where you will not know how people voted.

That is why I said before that if people don't like it...then vote the people out that voted for this rule.

This is no different then them voting directly on the Senate bill...the only difference is that the 4 or 5 members that still don't want to vote on "Yes" on the bill will try to go back to their districts and say the didn't vote for the Health Care bill. Will it work? That is up to the voters to decide.

Even republicans are saying that this procedural rule is perfectly legal...they just don't like it.

Rep. Eric Cantor, acknowledged that such a process is permissible under House rules. Under the procedure, a Senate-passed health bill would be "deemed" to have passed if House members voted in favor of a rule governing a separate bill with amendments to it.

From the same article...quote from Tim Kaine, Dem Party Chairman:

Asked if "deem and pass" is being used to provide cover for Democrats worried about voting for the measure, Kaine replied, "I don't think there's any cover to be found. Everyone's accountable."

Link to Source


Just like reconcilliation...republicans are claiming this is outrageous...even though they have used the "deem and pass" self-executing rule themselves 40 times in the 106th congress, 42 times in the 107th congress, and 30 times in the 108th congress.

So where was all this outrage then??? Or did you even know about it then?

Over the course of 3 republican controlled congresses....it was used 112 times...but this time it is outrageous and trying to be made out like it is something new??? Please...give me a break.

reply to post by gwydionblack

You are missing it because you are IGNORANT!

By definition...ignorance is a lack of knowledge in a subject. So as I asked before...educate me if you think I am ignorant. So we are right back to where we started...me asking you to show me what the hell you are talking about...and you dodging that question.

How is a "blind vote" legal and Constitutional?

See my post above...this self-executing procedural rule is perfectly legal and constitutional. It's a way for them to say...we deem it passed...but would like ammendments to it. Now there is no guarantee those amendments will happen and it may go right to Obama as-is...but it is still a perfectly legal procedure that has been used EXTENSIVELY by both parties in the past. So why the outrage now?

How is blatantly hiding decisions of our representatives for the sole fact that we the people can not see it rational and representative of our interests?

If you would EDUCATE yourself and not be IGNORANT of the procedure yourself...you would know that you will know exactly how each and every member will have voted on this rule. It's not hidden.

The second statement is true, but to claim that we aren't a democracy and aren't run by "mob rule" is just ludicrous

Mod rule would be looking at a non-accurate national poll of maybe 1000 people...taking the results of that and demanding that our representatives use that as their guide.

OR...each representative listens to it's OWN constituents and votes accordingly. Do you have PROOF that any representative is directly going against his/her constituents??? Has there been a district wide all inclusive vote in ANY district about the health care bill? Town halls aren't exactly a scientific way of determining the voice of the people...by default you are going to get people how are against the way the representative is going to vote then you would supporters. If they already know their rep is going to vote with what they support...what motivation do they have to go to a town hall? To say what...."I agree"??? I know my representative is voting EXACTLY how I want them to. Not everyone in my district agrees with that...but they don't need 100% approval...just the majority in THEIR DISTRICT...NOT A NATION WIDE TELEPHONE POLL.

So show me PROOF (not your opinion) that all the reps and senators that are voting "yes" to this have had district wide elections on the decision of healthcare and that they are voting in the opposite direction.

Where do we draw the line?

No one seemed to have a problem with 112 times the repulicans used this self-executing rule in previous congresses (and that is only recent history). So why are you drawing the line now??? Seems very hypocritical to me.

If your definition of true representation is anything close to what is happening today

What is happening today? Reps are voting in a way their constituents want...or will be voted out. Where is the flaw in that? If some right now are not doing what their constituents want on this healthcare bill...they will most likely be voted out. Some dems are holding strong and saying they won't vote because their district overwhelmingly don't like this bill...isn't that how it should work? If there was this big conspiracy that you suggest...there wouldn't even be a question about it...all dems would be voting for this regardless of what their districts think. But that isn't happening...you are seeing the system work...those who's districts support it are voting for it, those that don't are voting against, some my vote for it whose districts don't support it...and it is the responsibility of that district to take action and vote that person out.

Seems like the system is working to me...how would you like to change it???

The fact that you consider freedom to be "vague" goes to show why you will never understand my definition of it. Freedom, by any definition to me, is never vague.

"Freedom" is vague...when the slaves were "freed"...did they have "Freedom"??? Were women "free" directly after the revolution? You claim that today you are not "free"...and yet others claim they are "free". Are you "free" compared to a women in Afganistan? Are women in Afganistan today "free" compared to slaves in pre-civil war America? Are illegal immigrants "free" now...are they "free" if you would have your revolution and deport all of them???

If it isn't vague...then simply give me the universal definition of "Freedom". You can end this discussion at any time...but you choose not to.

reply to post by junglejake


Oh, its representative all right, it is just that they do not represent you or me. They represent the businesses inside and especially the big businesses outside their districts. They do not represent you, the People. That came to a full stop within the past 10 years.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

And if you don't like the way they voted on that...then don't vote for them next time.

As if they care? By then they're just going back to the private sector, to reap the fruits of their 'hard work' in the government.

This whole "don't complain - just wait two years and vote" attitude is totally beyond me.

This is no different than the bailout, 15 calls against to every 1 call for it. Yet it passed. Our representatives do not represent us, only the higher business enterprises.

OP, can you give source for this news, or where do you have get info from blind vote in coming healthcare bill.

Sorry, Im not from USA...

Ignorance runs Ravid everywhere. Blind Vote, seriously?? You see this is the mob mentality always goes wrong.