Why Do We Care What THEY Think?

Every election I have ever seen revolves around speeches and debates proclaiming and defending the beliefs of the candidates. Why should we care what they believe? Are we voting them into office for the purpose of allowing them to fulfill their personal wishes and agendas?

Has there ever been a candidate who came out and said, "I am here to serve YOU, I am here to listen to YOUR wishes and to carry them out to the best of my ability."

Were there candidates such as this, that were able to put their own personal ideologies on the back burner and SERVE the people wishes, this two-party bickering nonsense would immediately cease.

Why can we not have a candidate(s) who is unwilling to affiliate him/herself with any political party or belief system? Why can we not have a President who REPRESENTS the peoples' wishes?

I don't care what the President believes in, or what Senators, Mayors, Governors, etc. believe. I want them to care what WE believe and I want them to represent US. Period.

...(this may belong in the rant section, not sure, mods decide )...

Your abosulely right.

I for one dont care what the state or federal politicans believe in.

Ive always asked myself when seeing politians talk about certains matters "how is this bloke a expert in what hes talking about? and why is he the one telling me about it to begin with,this politican has not degree or education on this matter,yet they are telling me whats the facts and fiction are"

A good example i like to use is a guy called Peter Garrett,hes a Australian politican,the education minister for the Australia Labor party.
This same guy was in a band called Midnight Oil,where his lyrics and his beliefs are very contradictory to what he does today as a politican.
So this guy that was in a band singing out about things he believed in,and seemed very anti-government is now a education minister telling us how the schools should be run,its a joke...

I say ban political parties,they are no different to legal gangs in my eyes.

To change this system back to that it was meant to be, will require blood,sweat and tears, literally. A lot of blood was spilled over the last 100 yrs by money hungry power obsessed people we now call the ruling elite to bring it to this point.

reply to post by Hillbilly123069


Unfortunately all of our peoples' revolutionary-type energy is focused on fighting and winning against the opposing party. It's a great way to keep us all in place, for sure. Give us an idiotic internal power-struggle to occupy our minds while we blindly hand over our beliefs and wishes to be mandated and governed by another.

I have no clues as to how we go about changing this.

But, it is us that is responsible for reminding those folks who they work for.

reply to post by Skewed


It's difficult to know what to do. We're in deep, so to speak.

Another example, has anyone ever sent a letter to their member of congress expressing your wishes on some other law or mandate? Ever receive a reply which explains your congressman's own views on the subject and how they will be voting? Ever get really ticked off?

reply to post by kalunom


Well, the times that I have wrote my people, especially when we are not in agreement on an issue, mine have not even bothered to reply.

Originally posted by kalunom
reply to post by Skewed

 

It's difficult to know what to do. We're in deep, so to speak.

Another example, has anyone ever sent a letter to their member of congress expressing your wishes on some other law or mandate? Ever receive a reply which explains your congressman's own views on the subject and how they will be voting? Ever get really ticked off?

Our reps here in Texas seem pretty good about responding to e-mails.

Anyways, getting back to the OP, we care about what they think because we are voting for the ones whose views most closely align with our own, so if they get elected to office, they will then be able to best represent our view at the level of the office for which we elected them to. Our US senators and US House representative, are expected to vote according to the beliefs of those of us whom they represent at the US congress level. The same goes for those we elect to state and local government levels. That's why we send them information as to our views and try to attend their "town meetings" so they can get a feel for what are the predominant views from our respective regions that they represent.

That's why I care what the person I vote for believes.

And even with all the debates and speeches...even if we were to care what their beliefs/ideals are...they are simply catering to the biggest crowd for the most votes. We have no way of knowing what they really believe.

And we shouldn't care. It shouldn't matter. What matters is that they listen to and serve us.

We have sports, we don't need this party vs. party drama mucking up our country.

reply to post by davidchin


If you are able to find a candidate so closely related to your own personal views, that is great. I am just hard-pressed to find anyone who comes close to what I wish.

Thanks for your input!

I like the idea in spirit for sure; however, in practice I think it would be almost impractical for a politician to constantly vote the whims of the people (I don’t mean whims in a demeaning way just that people’s moods change frequently) and their every changing direction.

I mean basically a platform for politicians is like a compass or a mission statement. We as a voter are the investors – we chose the politician based on the general expression of his desired direction to take the cooperation (country in this case) in the term of his office. Once chosen by the majority of shareholders he/she takes the reins and goes with their plan for the full term often to the chagrin of the minority who didn’t want the person in office.

The reason is just as we can’t hold quantifiable referenda on every idea or bill introduced we can’t do it on a regular and sustained basis – which is why we have elections in cycles. Imagine if we had a constant vote on every issue the media would be unbearably manipulative.

Further, when a politician says he represents the people - which people? The majority who elected him which might change halfway through his term or the current majority who want something entirely different?

Finally, if this were the case it would basically result in mob rule.

I certainly don’t have all the answers on how to make this better so don’t be too harsh I just see how what we have in a representative republic is a lot better than a pure democracy. Do you really trust the majority of Americans to know or understand what they are even voting for half the time? As I look around a Wal-Mart I get scared…

Anyway here are some things I think would make it better:

I think some things that would make it better would be term limits for the house and senate. There should be no such thing as a professional politician – that would be a start. Each politician would have to have a means of support other than the government there being no cushy retirement availiable to them.

I also think that the 17th Amendment, which basically took the States’ representation at the federal table by putting Senators to the popular vote should go away. The House represents the people or the popular vote. States need someone who represents their interests in all legislative proceedings that used to be the Senators.

Contrary to what I said above some certain items should always be put to a public referendum.

Primarily as the 4th Branch of Government, we the people, could and should have direct control over anything that has to do with the pay, benefits, privileges, and budgets for the office holders and the running of actual legislative offices.

This could and should be the will of the people – I imagine the people would not give them half the pay, any of the prestige in divers, first class and military air travel that they vote for themselves. I also doubt we’d vote for the number of staffers they have or their pay scales or the operating budgets either.

I mean for instance they can charge alcohol and food to their offices for their staff – in the military or any other federal job you can never use government funds for entertaining your staff or even visiting dignitaries. The Soldiers and Officers pay for those things out of their own pay and arrange it if they want to have an event.

Spending the people’s money to express condolences say with flowers is absurd – if you want to send flowers to some family on behalf of your office take up a collection just like we did in the military. How many times as a Commander did I pay for flowers for new babies, deaths in the family etc., on behalf of the unit? A lot, why, because I could not charge these things to the unit - sometimes people chipped in most times I just bought them. They have to come from our own pay. Why should these government employees be any different?

Perhaps if they had to pay for their own flights home and the alcohol to entertain and encourage the business types to support their causes they’d think more about it. It’s easy to schmooze on the people’s money. For that matter, lobbying should be illegal – period.

The only voice that the representatives should hear are those of the people. Take away the ability of corporations and entities to donate money and we’d have a lot less corruption. However, with that take away the limits – if an individual wants to donate a million dollars they should be able to. It's thier money after all. However, any group formed of individuals to influance a politician should be considered conspiracy and illegal. An individual - that's America, a person can be held accountable. A faceless entity, be it a group or business can not be held accountable for their actions.

The problem with money especially lobbying money is the people who lobby usually are not spending their own they do it with profits and business money. If a person had to dip individually into his own pocket to give money to politicians I bet they’d spend less of it. Finally on this issue – it would all have to be open and it would be relatively easy therefore to prove which representatives were favoring an individual with their votes. It’s the anonymity and plausible deniability of funds that makes the whole thing look shady.

The last change would be that once a person had served in the house or senate he she would be forbidden to personally donate to any other politicians’ campaign thus taking away any influence they might have gained while serving. They wouldn’t be able to lobby for a corporation as that would be illegal as I stated above and take away their individual ability and they have to just go back to being a Joe without any influence having reached their term limits on any ability to legislate either with money or in office.

Our reps here in Texas seem pretty good about responding to e-mails. Anyways, getting back to the OP, we care about what they think because we are voting for the ones whose views most closely align with our own, so if they get elected to office, they will then be able to best represent our view at the level of the office for which we elected them to. Our US senators and US House representative, are expected to vote according to the beliefs of those of us whom they represent at the US congress level. The same goes for those we elect to state and local government levels. That's why we send them information as to our views and try to attend their "town meetings" so they can get a feel for what are the predominant views from our respective regions that they represent. That's why I care what the person I vote for believes.

Yer i agree,but the thing is,is when they actually get elected all that you thought you had in common with whoever you voted for seems to go straight out the window.As if they are a different person,with different agenda's and beliefs,thats what i see anyways and surely im not the only one.
I cant recall anyone ive seen get elected in my lifetime that has stayed the same person,and continued the same beliefs once in power regardless of the popularity of the beliefs,they always seem to flip-flop almost instantly once in power.Let alone actually serve what they have promised the public once in power...

Originally posted by Golf66
I like the idea in spirit for sure; however, in practice I think it would be almost impractical for a politician to constantly vote the whims of the people (I don’t mean whims in a demeaning way just that people’s moods change frequently) and their every changing direction.

Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? If the majority rules, then so be it. I see what you are saying, and you have a valid point. This is what a free society is, it puts the burden of responsibility upon the citizens shoulders and then they can blame no one but themselves if a wrong decision was made and certainly pat themselves on the back for good decisions. I would love for this to be the case.

Originally posted by Skewed

Originally posted by Golf66
I like the idea in spirit for sure; however, in practice I think it would be almost impractical for a politician to constantly vote the whims of the people (I don’t mean whims in a demeaning way just that people’s moods change frequently) and their every changing direction.

Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? If the majority rules, then so be it. I see what you are saying, and you have a valid point. This is what a free society is, it puts the burden of responsibility upon the citizens shoulders and then they can blame no one but themselves if a wrong decision was made and certainly pat themselves on the back for good decisions. I would love for this to be the case.

No, that is not 'the way it's supposed to be'.

Our entire government is designed to prevent mob rule/democracy.